UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA.  SAN  DIEGO 


3  182201561  5420 


F  .C 


t         I, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIEGO 

■■  111  II I  mill  II I  nil  mil  III 


3  1822  0156 


5420 


iza?? 


BOOKS 

BY    THE 

SAME 

AUTHOR 

THE 

CHRISTIAN  VIEW  OF  THE 

OLD 

TESTAMENT 

i2mo. 

Net, 

$1.00 

PROPHECY  AND  THE  PROPHETS 

Crown  8vo. 

Net, 

$1.50 

MINOR  PROPHETS 
l2mo 

Net,  Si.so; 

library 

edition,  crown  8vo. 

Net, 

I2.00 

THE 

WORKER  AND 

HIS  BIBLE 

i6mo.    Net,  so 

cents 

Biblical   Introduction   Series 

THE  BOOKS  OF   THE 
PENTATEUCH 

THEIR   ORIGIN,   CONTENTS 
AND  SIGNIFICANCE 


BY 


FREDERICK   CARL   EISELEN 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Interpretatton 
in  Garrett   Biblical  Institute 


THE     METHODIST     BOOK     CONCERN 

NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  19 16,  by 
FREDERICK  CARL  EISELEN 


The  Bible  text  used  in  this  volume  is  taken  from  the  American  Standard  Edition 
of  the  Revised  Bible,  copyright,  1901,  by  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  and  is  used  by 
permission. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

chapter  page 

Preface 7 

I.  Scope  and  History  of  Old  Testament  Introduction  . .     1 1 

II.  The  Books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Their  Contents.  .     25 

III.  History  of  the  Pentateuchal  Criticism 41 

IV.  Arguments  in  Favor  of  Mosaic  Authorship 

1.  Indirect  Evidence 61 

V.  Arguments  in  Favor  of  Mosaic  Authorship 

2.  External  Evidence 75 

VI.  Arguments  in  Favor  of  Mosaic  Authorship 

3.  Direct  Internal  Evidence 93 

VII.  Arguments  in  Favor  of  Mosaic  Authorship 

4.  Indirect  Internal  Evidence 105 

VIII.  The  Composite  Character  of  the  Pentateuch 

1.  The  Divine  Names  in  Genesis 121 

IX.  The  Composite  Character  of  the  Pentateuch 

2.  Repetitions  and  Discrepancies 137 

X.  The  Composite  Character  of  the  Pentateuch 

3.  Differences  in  Theological  Conception,  Style, 

AND  Vocabulary 151 

XL  Post-Mosaic  Elements  in  the  Pentateuch 167 

XII.  The  Law  Book  of  King  Josiah 179 

XIII.  Chronological  Order  of  the  Pentateuchal   Docu- 

ments 

1.  The  Historical  Situation  Reflected 199 

XIV.  Chronological  Order  of  the  Pentateuchal   Docu- 

ments 

2.  Theological  Standpoint;   Literary  Parallels; 

Vocabulary  and  Style;  Mutual  Relation.  ...  213 

XV.  Chronological  Order  of  the  Pentateuchal  Docu- 
ments 

3.  Dates  of  the  Documents 231 

5 


6  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XVI.  Ancient  Material  Embodied  in  the  Pentateuchal 
Documents 

1.  Poetic  Material 253 

XVII.  Ancient  Material  Embodied  in  the  Pentateuchal 
Documents 

2.  Legal  Material 269 

XVIII.  The  Growth  of  the  Pentateuch 291 

XIX.  The  Historical  and  Religious  Value  of  the  Penta- 
teuch   313 

Index 335 


PREFACE 

To  some  it  may  appear  presumptuous  on  the  part  of 
the  author  to  offer  to  Bible  students  a  new  Introduction 
to  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  ground  has 
been  covered  often,  even  by  English-speaking  scholars, 
and,  what  is  far  more  significant,  has  been  covered  well. 
To  mention  but  a  few  books  in  English :  the  student 
with  adequate  preparation  may  turn  to  the  standard  work 
by  the  late  Professor  Driver,  or  to  the  admirable  Intro- 
duction of  Professor  Cornill ;  the  student  interested  in  a 
more  popular  presentation  of  the  subject  will  find  satis- 
factory guides  in  the  Introductions  of  Professors  Bennett, 
McFadyen,  and  G.  B,  Gray.  And  yet  the  author  has 
felt  for  some  time  that  there  is  room  for  another  Intro- 
duction— an  Introduction  as  complete,  comprehensive, 
and  scholarly  as  the  works  of  Driver  and  Cornill,  but 
written  in  less  technical  or  more  popular  language  and 
style. 

The  aim  and  purpose  of  the  author  to  supply  this  want 
will  explain  some  characteristics  of  the  present  work. 
Few  abbreviations  are  used  and  relatively  few  footnotes 
are  given.  Whenever  possible,  reference  is  made  to 
books  written  in  English,  and  preference  is  given  to  books 
or  periodicals  which  may  be  expected  to  be  within  reach 
of  students  removed  from  large  libraries.  The  wisdom 
of  using  In  the  place  of  the  name  "Jehovah,"  found  in 
the  American  Revised  Version,  the  more  accurate — 
though  probably  not  original — form,  "Yahweh,"  may  be 

7 


8  PREFACE 

questioned ;  but  the  author  decided  in  favor  of  the  latter 
in  order  to  avoid  the  confusion  that  might  result  from  the 
use  of  "Jehovah"  in  the  body  of  the  discussion  and  of 
the  other  name  in  quotations  from  authors  preferring  the 
latter ;  only  in  quotations  from  American  Revised  Version 
the  more  familiar  form  has  been  retained. 

On  questions  regarding  which  scholars  are  not  in 
agreement  the  author  tries  to  state  his  own  view  and  to 
present  the  reasons  upon  which  his  view  is  based.  And 
it  may  be  stated  in  passing  that  he  holds  his  views  not 
because  they  agree  with  the  views  of  other  scholars,  but 
simply  because,  to  his  way  of  thinking,  they  offer  the 
most  satisfactory  explanation  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
At  the  same  time  he  endeavors  to  be  fair  in  presenting 
the  arguments  used  in  support  of  divergent  opinions,  for 
he  believes  that  every  student  should  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  estimating  for  himself  the  value  of  the  argu- 
ments and  of  drawing  his  own  conclusions. 

In  using  a  work  of  this  character  the  student  is  some- 
times tempted  to  confine  his  study  to  the  book  on  Intro- 
duction and  to  neglect  the  study  of  the  biblical  text. 
This  is  a  serious  mistake.  No  one  can  understand  and 
appreciate  the  weakness  or  strength  of  an  argument  un- 
less he  makes  constant  use  of  the  book  in  which  the 
facts  upon  which  the  argument  is  based  are  found. 
Therefore,  the  author  would  urge  the  student  to  base  his 
study  upon  the  biblical  text  and  to  use  the  Introduction 
simply  as  a  guide  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  facts 
presented  in  the  Bible. 

It  should  further  be  noted  that  a  work  of  this  kind 
cannot  undertake  a  detailed  interpretation  of  the  message 
of  a  book.  It  introduces  the  student  to  the  book  and  the 
book  to  the  student ;  and  after  furnishing  the  introduction, 


PREFACE  9 

which  is  essential  for  an  adequate  comprehension  of  the 
message,  it  urges  him  to  pursue  a  more  detailed  study  of 
the  contents. 

The  present  volume  is  the  first  in  a  series  of  four 
volumes  devoted  to  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  discus- 
sion the  arrangement  of  the  Old  Testament  books  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  is  followed.  Thus,  the  first  volume  deals 
with  the  Books  of  the  Pentateuch;  the  second  will  deal 
with  the  books  included  among  the  Prophets  in  the 
Jewish  Canon,  and  the  third  with  the  Writings.  The 
fourth  volume  will  be  in  two  parts :  the  first  will  discuss 
the  formation  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  and  the  con- 
dition and  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  Text;  the  second 
will  consider  the  proper  place  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  modern  scholarship  re- 
flected in  the  preceding  volumes. 

The  wisdom  of  devoting  four  chapters  of  this  volume 
to  a  consideration  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  doubted  by 
some,  but  the  author  believes  that  there  are  still  multi- 
tudes of  serious  Bible  students  who  need  and  are  entitled 
to  a  fair  and  full  discussion  of  these  arguments. 

Whether  the  student  finds  himself  in  agreement  with 
the  conclusions  of  the  author  or  not,  he  should  remember 
that  the  author  has  been  prompted  by  the  desire  to  know 
the  truth  and  to  present  the  truth  apprehended  by  him  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  Bible  student  may  be  led  to  a 
deeper  and  truer  appreciation  of  the  vital,  divine  character 
of  the  message  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  How  well 
he  has  succeeded  in  this  sincere  and  earnest  attempt  the 
reader  and  student  must  decide. 

Frederick  Carl  Eiselen, 

Evanston,  Illinois. 


CHAPTER  I 

SCOPE  AND  HISTORY  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
INTRODUCTION 


CHAPTER  I 

SCOPE  AND  HISTORY  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
INTRODUCTION 

Scope  of  Old  Testament  Introduction.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment is  not  a  single  book,  the  work  of  one  man,  but  a 
library  consisting  of  many  books.  These  books  were 
written  by  many  authors,  at  different  times  and  under 
varying  circumstances.  At  first  they  existed  and  circu- 
lated separately,  and  during  this  period  of  independent 
existence  some  of  them  underwent  considerable  modifica- 
tions or  received  additions  of  various  kinds.  But  gradu- 
ally they  were  brought  together  to  form  the  collection 
now  known  as  the  Old  Testament. 

During  the  centuries  of  separate  existence  and  later,  as 
parts  of  the  canon  of  Sacred  Scriptures,  the  books  were 
copied  and  recopied  until,  after  the  invention  of  printing, 
they  assumed  printed  form.  In  the  course  of  the  fre- 
quent copyings  the  text  suffered  more  or  less  serious 
corruptions.  Consequently,  in  different  localities  and  at 
different  times,  attempts  were  made  to  remove  these 
errors  and  to  restore  the  text  to  its  pristine  purity. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  small  portions,  the  Old 
Testament  books  were  written  in  Hebrew;  and  in  this 
language  they  were  read  for  several  centuries.  As  the 
result  of  the  dispersion  of  thousands  of  Jews  among 
Greek-speaking  peoples  a  demand  arose,  even  before  the 
opening  of  the  Christian  era,  for  a  translation  of  the 

13 


14   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Jewish  Sacred  Books  into  Greek.  The  substitution  of 
Aramaic  for  Hebrew  as  the  vernacular  of  Palestine  was 
responsible  for  early  translations  or  paraphrases  into 
Aramaic.  The  spread  of  Christianity,  with  its  emphasis 
on  the  Old  Testament,  caused  similar  demands  to  be 
made  by  peoples  speaking  other  tongues.  To  meet  these 
demands  the  Old  Testament  writings,  indorsed  and 
adopted  by  the  Christian  Church,  were  translated  into 
numerous  languages  and  dialects. 

To  trace  these  various  fortunes  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  a  whole  and  of  its  constituent  parts  is  not  only  of 
interest,  but  also  of  the  greatest  value  for  an  adequate 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  both  contents  and 
teaching.  It  is  the  function  of  Old  Testament  Intro- 
duction to  take  the  Bible  student  over  this  ground  and 
to  furnish  him  the  general  information  that  will  make 
possible  a  proper  understanding  of  the  thought  and  mes- 
sage of  the  book.  Old  Testament  Introduction,  therefore, 
may  be  defined  as  the  scientific  study  of  the  origin, 
original  form,  general  contents,  and  intended  significance 
of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  their  collection  into  the 
canon,  and  their  transmission  from  the  earliest  times  to 
the  present.^ 

Old  Testament  Introduction  is  commonly  treated  under 
two  heads:  (i)  General  Introduction,  and  (2)  Special 
Introduction.  With  this  arrangement.  General  Introduc- 
tion considers  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  and  has  to 
do  (a)  with  the  setting  apart  of  the  books  into  the  collec- 


'  Formerly  it  was  customary  to  discuss  a  much  greater  variety 
of  subjects  under  the  head  of  Introduction,  such  as  the  language 
of  the  Old  Testament,  hermeneutics,  history,  geography,  archaeology, 
etc.  There  is,  however,  at  present,  quite  general  agreement  on 
limiting  the  study  to  the  subjects  enumerated  above. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION        15 

tion  called  the  Old  Testament;  in  other  words,  with  the 
extent,  origin,  and  growth  of  the  Old  Testament  canon; 
(b)  with  the  writing  and  transmission  of  the  books  in 
this  canon,  the  history  of  Hebrew  MSS.,  recensions,  trans- 
lations, revisions,  etc. ;  in  other  words,  with  the  condition 
and  transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  text.  Special 
Introduction  deals  with  the  separate  books  of  which  the 
Old  Testament  consists,  and  discusses  their  authenticity, 
integrity,  authorship,  contents,  design,  plan,  form,  style, 
date,  and  other  questions  relating  to  their  origin. 

The  division  into  General  Introduction  and  Special 
Introduction,  though  convenient,  is  open  to  criticism,  be- 
cause neither  canonicity  nor  the  condition  of  the  text  can 
be  adequately  discussed  apart  from  a  study  of  the  separate 
books.  Setting  aside,  then,  the  above  division,  the  sub- 
jects commonly  included  in  Introduction  may  be  arranged 
under  three  heads:  (i)  Study  of  the  origin,  original 
form,  general  contents  and  intended  value  of  the  separate 
Old  Testament  books.  (2)  Study  of  the  setting  apart  of 
these  books  into  the  collection  known  as  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon.  (3)  Study  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  its  fortunes  from  the  time  of  the  autographs  to  the 
present. 

To  these  three  subjects  may  be  added  (4)  :  A  considera- 
tion of  the  significance  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light 
of  modern  knowledge.  During  the  past  century  or  two 
the  Old  Testament  has  been  subjected  to  tests  of  various 
kinds.  What  are  the  results  of  these  investigations? 
What  is  their  bearing  on  the  place  and  significance  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  thought  and  life  of  to-day?  Or, 
to  put  it  in  another  way.  What  should  be  the  attitude  of 
the  thinking  man  to-day  toward  the  Old  Testament? 
Many  demand  an  answer  to  these  questions  before  they 


i6   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

will  undertake  a  study  of  the  book.  It  seems  proper, 
therefore,  to  consider,  as  a  part  of  Introduction,  the 
results  of  scientific  investigation,  critical  inquiry,  archseo- 
logical  research,  and  the  comparative  study  of  religions 
in  their  relation  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  their  bearing 
upon  the  trustworthiness,  uniqueness,  and  permanent 
value  of  the  Old  Testament  writings. 

History  of  Old  Testament  Introduction.  Biblical 
Introduction  is  a  comparatively  recent  development. 
True,  some  of  the  early  church  fathers^  discussed  ques- 
tions— linguistic,  geographical,  historical,  etc. — which  are 
properly  a  part  of  Introduction,  but  no  complete  treatise 
was  produced.  In  the  fifth  century  the  Syrian  monk 
Adrian  wrote  an  Introduction  to  the  Divine  Scriptures, 
and  in  the  following  century  similar  books  appeared; 
but  none  of  these,  though  containing  valuable  introduc- 
tory material,  can  be  called  Introductions  in  the  modern 
sense.  Such  treatises  were  practically  unknown  before 
the  period  of  the  Reformation. 

The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  gave  an  impetus 
to  biblical  studies  of  every  kind.  The  revival  of  interest 
in  humanistic  studies  created  a  new  interest  in  the  Hebrew 
language,^  and  the  controversy  regarding  the  seat  of 
authority — the  church,  or  the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  the 
individual — turned  the  attention  of  scholars  toward  the 
contents  and  their  meaning.  This  led  to  a  discussion  of 
various  questions  of  Introduction,  such  as  the  condition 
and  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  text,  the  canonicity  of 
the    biblical    books    and    the    extra-canonicity    of    the 


'  Origen,  Augustine,  Jerome,  etc. 

'J.  Reuchlin,  1455-1522,  was  the  first  Hebrew  grammarian  among 
Christians ;  he  was  strongly  influenced  by  the  greatest  Jewish  scholar 
of  the  age,  Elias  Levita,  1469- 1549. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION        17 

apocryphal  books,  the  authorship,  date,  and  relative  value 
of  individual  books.  The  Renaissance  and  Reforma- 
tion, therefore,  may  be  credited  with  giying  rise  to  the 
modern,  scientific  discussions  of  questions  of  Intro- 
duction. 

The  following  are  among  the  more  prominent  writers  of  this 
period :  Sixtus  of  Sienna,''  a  Roman  Catholic  convert  from  Judaism, 
who  distinguished  between  protocanonical  and  deuterocanonical 
writings  and  discussed  also  matters  relating  to  individual  books. 
An  important  work  was  produced  by  Karlstadt,  the  friend  and  co- 
worker of  Luther."  A.  Rivetus°  defined  Scripture  as  that  which 
proceeds  from  God  as  the  special  author ;  he  held  an  entirely 
mechanical  view  of  inspiration.  One  of  the  most  influential  writers 
was  Ludovicus  Cappellus,^  who  maintained  that  the  Hebrew  vowel 
points  and  accents  were  unknown  to  the  biblical  writers  and  that 
they  were  introduced  centuries  after  the  opening  of  the  Christian 
era.  Cappellus  influenced  John  Morinus,*  a  convert  from  Protestant- 
ism to  Catholicism,  who  wrote  several  volumes  on  subjects  of 
Introduction.  In  his  zeal  for  the  authority  of  the  church  he 
declared  that  God  caused  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  to  be  written 
without  vowel  points,  so  that  men  would  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  the  church  instead  of  following  their  own  private  judgment. 
Richard  Simon,'  a  man  of  great  learning,  published,  in  1678,  his 
Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  in  which,  among  other 
things,  he  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

A  new  epoch  was  introduced  in  the  eighteenth  century 
by  the  rise  of  rationalism,  with  its  disregard  of  the 
miraculous.  The  way  had  been  prepared  for  this  by 
B.  Spinoza,^"  a  pronounced  pantheist,  who  believed  the 
Scriptures  to  contain  no  divine  revelation.    The  accounts 

*Born  1520;  his  book  was  entitled  Bibliotheca  Sancta. 

*  Entitled  De  Canonicis  Scripturis    (1520). 
'Born  1572. 

'  1585-1658. 
'Born  1591. 

•  1638-1712. 
"  1632-1677. 


i8   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  the  miracles  he  considered  legendary,  and  he  was 
ready  to  reject  as  untrue  all  that  seemed  supernatural. 
He  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
expressed  the  opinion  that  it,  like  the  other  historical 
books,  received  its  final  form  under  Ezra.  The  his- 
torical portions  of  Daniel  he  considered  to  have  been 
written  later  than  Daniel,  on  the  basis  of  Chaldean 
annals. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  new  tendency  the  Old 
Testament  came  to  be  studied  like  any  other  literary 
production,  and  scholars  like  Eichhorn,  Michaelis,  De- 
Wette,  and  others  went  at  their  task  with  the  definite 
purpose  of  explaining  the  several  books  entirely  in  the 
light  of  the  historical  situation  therein  presupposed.  On 
the  whole,  the  Introductions  of  the  latter  part  of  the 
eighteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century 
were  the  outgrowth  of  this  new  point  of  view,  and,  as 
may  be  expected,  they  set  aside  the  traditional  views  in 
many  instances. 

The  more  important  works  of  this  period  are :  J.  G.  Eichhorn, 
Einleitung  in  die  goettlichen  Schriften  des  Alien  Bundes,  1787; 
G.  L.  Bauer,  Entwurf  einer  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des  Alten 
Testaments,  1794;  W.  M.  L.  DeWette,  Lehrbuch  der  historisch- 
kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  kanonischen  und  apokryphischen  Buecher 
des  Alten  Testaments,  1817;  T.  H.  Home,  Introduction  to  the 
Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  1818;  Hein- 
rich  Ewald,  1803-1875,  published  no  formal  Introduction,  but  in  his 
numerous  works  he  covered  practically  the  whole  range  of  Intro- 
duction; Friedrich  Bleek,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  i860. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case,  these  Introductions,  which 
seemed  to  minimize  the  supernatural,  aroused  bitter  oppo- 
sition, and  several  attempts  were  made  to  rehabilitate  the 
older  traditional  views,  notably  by  Hengstenberg, 
Haevernick,  Keil,  and,  in  America,  W.  H.  Green. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION        19 

E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  Beitraege  sur  Einleitung  ins  Alte  Testa- 
ment, 3  vols.,  1831-1839;  H.  A.  C.  Haevernick,  Handbuch  der  his- 
torisch-kritischen  Einleitung  ins  Alte  Testament,  3  vols.,  1836-1849; 
C.  F.  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  die 
kanonischen  Schriften  des  Alten  Testaments,  1853 ;  W.  H.  Green 
has  vifritten  no  complete  Introduction,  but  he  has  published  a  volume 
on  the  Canon  and  one  on  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
several  volumes  dealing  with  various  aspects  of  the  Pentateuchal 
problem  and  other  questions  of  Introduction;  John  H.  Raven,  Old 
Testament  Introduction,  1906. 

Meanwhile  scholars  were  at  work  studying  the  sub- 
ject of  Introduction,  especially  as  it  related  to  the  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch,  upon  a  broader  basis.  Earlier  writers 
had  depended  almost  exclusively  upon  linguistic  criteria, 
but  scholars  like  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and 
others  realized  the  inadequacy  of  this  method  of  pro- 
cedure; hence  they  sought  and  found  additional  support 
for  their  views  in  what  they  conceived  to  have  been  the 
political,  social,  and  religious  development  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  Chiefly  through  the  brilliant  exposition  of  Julius 
Wellhausen  the  newer  views  rapidly  gained  adherents  in 
all  countries,  though  there  were  numerous  scholars  who 
insisted  that  many  of  the  conclusions  which  found  ready 
acceptance  were  without  adequate  support. 

Edward  Reuss  set  forth  these  newer  views  as  early  as  1834  in 
lectures  on  Old  Testament  Introduction  delivered  at  the  University 
of  Strassburg,  but  they  were  not  published  until  1879  in  L'Histoire 
Sainte  et  La  Lot,  and  1881  in  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des 
Alten  Testaments.  Two  of  Reuss's  students  followed  out  the  sug- 
gestions thrown  out  in  the  lectures  and  published  their  results 
before  the  above-mentioned  books  appeared ;  K.  H.  Graf,  Die 
geschichtlichen  Buecher  des  Alten  Testaments,  l866 ;  August  Kayser, 
Das  vorexilische  Buck  der  Urgeschichte  Israels,  1874.  Professor  A. 
Kuenen  defended  Graf's  views  in  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  1869,  and 
expanded  his  investigations  in  the  second  edition  of  Historisch- 
kritische  Einleitung  in  die  Buecher  des  Alten  Testaments,  translated 
into  German  in  1887-1892.    The  most  able  of  the  earlier  exponents 


20   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  the  newer  method  was  J.  Wellhausen,  who  set  forth  his  views 
in  various  articles  and  books,  notably  in  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte 
Israels,  1878,  and  in  the  fourth  edition  of  Bleek's  Einleitung  in  das 
Altc  Testament. 

Among  the  followers  of  these  pioneers  two  "schools" 
may  be  distinguished.  On  the  one  hand  are  those  who 
accept  Wellhausen's  views,  not  only  regarding  the  growth 
of  Israel's  literature,  but  also  regarding  the  development 
of  Israel's  history  and  religion.  On  the  other  hand  there 
are  many  scholars  who  insist  that,  while  the  newer  views 
regarding  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament  books  may  be 
correct,  there  is  much  more  reliance  to  be  placed  upon 
Hebrew  tradition,  and  that  there  is  more  of  the  unique 
and  divine  in  Israel's  rehgion  than  some  modern  scholars 
are  ready  to  admit. 

The  former  point  of  view  is  reflected,  for  example,  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  questions  of  Introduction  in  B.  Stade,  Geschichte  des 
Volkes  Israel,  1881.  The  other  tendency  appears  most  pronounced 
in  H.  L.  Strack,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1883;  E.  Koenig, 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1893.  By  far  the  greater  number 
of  scholars  occupy  intermediate  positions,  some  leaning  more  in 
the  one,  others  more  in  the  other  direction :  E.  Riehm,  Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament,  1889;  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the 
Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  1891 ;  tenth  new,  enlarged,  and 
revised  edition,  1910;  C.  Cornill,  Einleitutig  in  das  Alte  Testament, 
1891;  English  translation,  1907;  W.  H.  Bennett,  A  Biblical  Intro- 
duction, 1899;  Wolf  Wilhelm  Graf  Baudissin,  Einleitung  in  die 
Buecher  des  Alien  Testament,  1901 ;  J.  E.  McFayden,  An  Intro- 
duction to  the  Old  Testament,  1905;  C.  E.  Steuernagel,  Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament,  1912;  G.  B.  Gray,  A  Critical  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament,  1913. 

Generally  speaking,  the  literary  conclusions  of  the 
Wellhausen  school  seem  to  hold  the  field  at  present, 
though  not  without  important  modifications.  For  ex- 
ample, while  Wellhausen  showed  a  tendency  to  assign  the 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION        21 

origin  of  a  narrative  to  the  period  when  it  first  assumed 
literary  form,  it  is  now  quite  generally  recognized  that  a 
narrative  may  have  been  in  existence  long  before  it  was 
written  down,  and  that  it  may  have  been  preserved,  with 
few  alterations,  by  oral  tradition  for  generations  and 
even  centuries.  As  a  result  many  modern  writers  on 
questions  of  Introduction  admit  the  presence  in  the  Old 
Testament  books  of  much  more  ancient  material  than 
Wellhausen  was  ready  to  concede. 

Of  the  many  books  reflecting  this  tendency  may  be  mentioned, 
in  addition  to  those  named  in  the  preceding  paragraph :  E.  Sellin, 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  iQio;  R.  Kittel,  Die  alttestanient- 
liche  Wisscnschaft  in  ihren  wichtigsten  Ergebnissen,  1910;  English 
translation,  191 1;  H.  Gunkel,  Genesis,  1902;  the  introductory  section 
of  this  Commentary  has  been  translated  into  English  under  the 
title  The  Legends  of  Genesis. 

Moreover,  the  discovery  of  the  civilizations  and  litera- 
tures of  other  Oriental  nations  has  shown,  in  the  first 
place,  the  antiquity  of  literary  efforts,  and,  in  the  second 
place,  the  close  relation  existing  between  these  civiliza- 
tions and  that  of  Israel ;  which  again  points  in  the  direc- 
tion of  greater  antiquity  for  some  of  the  customs  and 
practices  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament. 

This  subject  receives  consideration  in  a  great  variety  of  dis- 
cussions, but  general  agreement  has  not  yet  been  attained :  F. 
Hommel,  Die  altisraelitische  Ueberlieferung  in  inschriftlicher 
Bc'leuchtung,  1897;  English  translation,  1897;  H.  Winckler,  Altorien- 
talische  Forschungen,  i897fF.,  and  numerous  other  writings;  E. 
Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriftcn  und  das  Alte  Testament,  especially 
the  third  edition,  prepared  by  H.  Winckler  and  H.  Zimmern,  1902; 
A.  Jeremias,  Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  alten  Orient,  1904; 
English  translation,  1911;  A.  T.  Clay,  Light  on  the  Old  Testament 
from  Babel,  1906 ;  and  many  more.  The  most  recent  and  most 
complete  collection  of  cuneiform  inscriptions  throwing  light  on  Old 
Testament  history  and  religion  is  contained  in  R.  W.  Rogers, 
Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the  Old   Testament,  1912. 


22       THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

However,  while  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  recent 
writers  assign  some  Old  Testament  material  that  was 
formerly  considered  late  to  earlier  dates,  the  present 
trend  in  purely  literary  matters  is  in  the  direction  of  the 
views  advocated  by  the  so-called  Graf-Wellhausen  school. 

All  the  Introductions  mentioned  in  the  preceding  para- 
graphs have  to  do  primarily  with  the  origin  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  and  their  component  parts;  and  in  all 
of  them  the  discussions  are  based  upon  the  books  as  they 
appear  at  present  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  When 
it  was  seen,  however,  that  many  of  the  biblical  books  are 
compilations  embodying  material  coming  from  different 
periods,  attempts  came  to  be  made  to  trace  the  origin  and 
growth  of  the  Hebrew  literary  remains  irrespective  of 
the  form  or  forms  in  which  they  are  found  at  present. 
In  other  words,  attempts  were  made  to  write  histories 
of  the  literature  of  the  Hebrews  similar  to  the  histories 
of  the  literatures  of  ancient  Greece,  Rome,  India,  Persia, 
and  more  modern  peoples.  Such  histories  have  their 
place  and  value  in  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
they  are  not  Introductions,  for  the  latter  must  begin  with 
the  books  in  their  present  form  and  must  seek  to  deter- 
mine their  origin,  growth,  and  setting  apart,  in  their 
present  form,  into  the  collection  of  sacred  writings  known 
as  the  Old  Testament. 

The  more  important  literary  histories  are :  G.  Wildeboer,  Die 
Litteratur  des  Alien  Testaments  nach  der  Leitfolge  ihrer  Entstehung, 
1894;  E.  Kautzsch,  Abriss  der  Geschichtc  des  alttestamentlichen 
Schrifttums,  1897 ;  English  translation,  1898 ;  Karl  Budde,  Die  Israel- 
itische  Litteratur,  1906;  H.  T.  Fowler,  A  History  of  the  Literature 
of  Ancient  Israel,  1912. 

The  other  branches  of  Old  Testament  Introduction — 
the  formation  of  the  canon  and  the  condition  and  trans- 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION        23 

mission  of  the  text — have  not  been  neglected.  Most  of 
the  Introductions  already  named  discuss  these  subjects, 
at  least  briefly;  but  there  are  some  volumes  that  are 
devoted  entirely  to  the  consideration  of  one  or  the  other 
of  these  two  topics. 

G.  Wildeboer,  Die  Entstchung  des  alttestamentlichen  Kanons, 
1891 ;  English  translation,  1895 ;  F.  Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text  des  Alten 
Testaments,  1891 ;  English  translation,  1892;  H.  E.  Ryle,  The  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament,  1892;  C.  D.  Ginsburg,  Introduction  to  the 
Massoretico-Critical  Edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  1897;  W.  H. 
Green,  General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament — The  Canon, 
1898 ;  The  Text,  1899 ;  T.  H.  Weir,  A  Short  History  of  the  Hebrew 
Text  of  the  Old  Testament,  1899;  A.  S.  Geden,  Outlines  of  an 
Introduction  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  1909.  Valuable  material  is 
found  also  in  C.  A.  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
Holy  Scripture,  1899. 

The  bearing  of  recent  research  and  investigation  on 
the  permanent  place  and  significance  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  religious  life  and  thought  has  been  discussed  in  a 
multitude  of  articles  and  books. 

Among  the  better  known  books,  not  previously  mentioned,  are 
the  following:  J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the 
Christian  Church,  1903;  J.  P.  Peters,  The  Old  Testament  and  the 
New  Scholarship,  1902;  G.  A.  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the 
Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  1901 ;  C.  F.  Kent,  The  Origin  and 
Permanent  Value  of  the  Old  Testament,  1906;  R.  W.  Rogers,  The 
Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  1908;  A.  W.  Vernon,  The 
Religious  Value  of  the  Old  Testament,  1907;  W.  G.  Jordan,  Biblical 
Criticism  and  Modern  Thought,  1909;  S.  R.  Driver,  Modern  Re- 
search as  Illustrating  the  Bible,  1909;  M.  Flinders  Petrie,  Egypt  and 
Israel,  191 1;  F.  C.  Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 1912;  A.  S.  Peake,  The  Bible — Its  Origin,  Its  Significance, 
Its  Abiding  Worth,  1913 ;  M.  Jastrow,  Hebrew  and  Babylonian 
Traditions,  1914;  W.  F.  Bade,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of 
To-day,  191 5. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND 
THEIR  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND 
THEIR  CONTENTS 

The  Name  "Pentateuch."  According  to  the  common 
Jewish  arrangement  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  consists 
of  three  parts,  called  Law,  Prophets,  and  Writings}  The 
first  of  these  consists  of  five  books,  sometimes  called  the 
Five  Books  of  Moses.  This  group  of  books  is  called 
Torah,  or  Law,  because  it  contains  practically  the  entire 
legal  system  of  the  Jews.  While  the  Law  was  originally 
a  continuous  whole,  the  five-fold  division  goes  back  to 
very  early  times :  the  early  rabbis  speak  of  the  five  fifths 
of  the  Law,  while  the  early  church  fathers,  beginning 
with  TertuJlian,  employ  the  term  Pentateuch,  which  is 
still  in  common  use  among  Christians.  In  the  Greek  name 
7]  TTEVTdTevxog,  TTevTdrevxog  (five-rolled)  is  used  as  an  ad- 
jective; the  noun  (3i(3Xog  ("book")  is  to  be  supplied. 
Td  revxog  properly  denotes  the  box  or  chest  in  which  the 
roll  was  kept,  but  in  the  course  of  time  it  came  to  be 
used  of  the  roll  itself.  Symmachus,  who  translated  the 
Old  Testament  into  Greek  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century  A.D.,  used  it  as  the  equivalent  of  the 
Hebrew  word  ^\^^h  "roll." 

The  Fivefold  Division.  The  five  books  in  the  Penta- 
teuch are  named  by  the  Jews  after  the  opening  words  of 
the  several  books.     Thus  the  first  book  is  called   '^""^^^^t^ii 


^  Torah,  Nebhiim,  and  Kethubhim. 

27 


28   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

— bereshtth,  "In  Beginning";  the  second,  ^I'^uj  or 
m73^  ntN"i — shenwth,  or  weclleh  shemoth,  "Names,"  or 
"And  these  are  the  Names" ;  the  third,  ^"^T-- — wayyikrd, 
"And  he  called";  the  fourth,  ^?7'?t — bemidhbdr,  "In 
Wilderness"^  or  ^?T] — wayedhabber,  "And  he  said"  ;^ 
the  fifth,  o^1?7^  ^l^. — clleh  haddebharim,  "These  are  the 
words,"  or  simply,  °''15"? — debhdnm,  "Words." 

The  names  of  the  books  in  the  English  Bible  are  derived 
through  the  Latin  translation  of  Jerome,  called  the  Vul- 
gate, from  the  early  Greek  translation  known  as  the 
Septuagint,  and  are  meant  to  be  descriptive  of  the  con- 
tents. Genesis,  yeveaig,  "Generation"  or  "Origin" — de- 
rived from  the  Septuagint  translation  of  Gen.  2.  4a, 
avTT]  7}  (itfiXog  yeveoecjg  ovpavov  Kal  y^f;  Exodus,  e^odog, 
"Coming  out" — that  is,  from  Egypt ;  Leviticus,  Xevltlkov, 
"Levitical"( "system") — found  chiefly  in  this  book;  Num- 
bers, dgf&noi,  "Numbers" — suggested  by  the  numbering 
of  the  people  recorded  in  the  opening  chapters;  Deuter- 
onomy, devrepovoficov,  "Repetition  of  the  Law" — derived 
from  17.  18,  where  the  Septuagint  translated  erroneously 
TO  devTspovdniov  tovto,  "this  repetition  of  the  law" ;  the 
true  meaning  is  "a  copy  of  this  law." 

The  fivefold  division  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the  con- 
tents. Genesis  clearly  forms  a  book  by  itself,  and  so 
does  Deuteronomy;  Leviticus  has  characteristics  of  its 
own,  which  separates  it  from  the  books  on  either  side. 
This  leaves  Exodus  and  Numbers,  the  opening  words  of 
the  former*  and  the  closing  words  of  the  latter^  showing 
that  each  is  considered  complete  in  itself. 


'  The  fifth  word  of  the  first  verse. 
^  The  first  word. 
*  Exodus  I.  1-7. 
"  Numbers  36.  13. 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS     29 

The  Hexateuch.  Modern  scholars  add  to  the  five 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  the  book  of  Joshua,  because  "its 
contents,  and  still  more,  its  literary  structure,  show  that 
it  is  intimately  connected  with  the  Pentateuch  and  de- 
scribes the  final  stage  in  the  history  of  the  Origines  of 
the  Hebrew  nation."  ^  Hence  it  has  become  customary 
to  speak  of  the  first  six  books  of  the  Old  Testament — 
Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy, 
Joshua — as  the  Hexateuch,  that  is,  the  six-roll  book. 
That  there  is  justification  for  this  arrangement  may  be 
seen,  for  example,  from  this  very  simple  consideration : 
The  divine  promise  that  the  descendants  of  Abraham 
should  occupy  Canaan,  repeatedly  made  in  Genesis  and 
never  lost  sight  of  in  the  following  books,  is  shown  only 
in  the  book  of  Joshua  to  have  attained  realization.  The 
reason  for  separating  the  material  in  the  book  of  Joshua 
from  the  Torah  appears  to  be  twofold  :  ( i )  Moses  could 
not  be  connected  with  this  material  as  its  author;  (2)  the 
contents  made  it  impossible  to  set  it  apart,  with  the  books 
of  the  Pentateuch,  as  an  authoritative  rule  of  life. 

General  Contents  of  the  Hexateuch.  Though  there  is 
great  variety  of  contents  in  the  books  of  the  Hexateuch, 
it  is  possible  to  arrange  all  the  material  under  two  heads : 

I.  History:  The  historical  portions  of  the  Hexateuch 
cover  the  period  beginning  with  the  creation  of  the  world 
and  ending  with  the  settlement  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel  in  Canaan.  This  period  may  be  divided  into  three 
epochs:   (i)  The  beginning  of  all  things — Gen.   i.   i  to 

II.  9;  (2)  The  Hebrew  Patriarchs — Gen.  11. 10  to  50.26; 
(3)  The  organization  of  Israel  as  a  national  unit  and  its 


°  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  103. 


30   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

settlement  in  Canaan — the  historical  sections  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  and  Joshua.  Even  in 
these  so-called  historical  sections  no  attempt  is  made  to 
furnish  a  complete  history,  many  details  important  to  the 
historian  are  treated  briefly  or  passed  over  entirely ;  never- 
theless, the  stream  of  narrative  is  never  wholly  inter- 
rupted, and  though  at  times  it  is  almost  lost  sight  of,  it 
always  reappears  and  flows  on  to  the  end.  2.  Law: 
The  legal  element  in  the  first  five  books  is  so  prominent 
that,  as  has  been  stated,  they  are  known  as  Torah,  which 
means.  Law.  The  book  of  Leviticus  consists  entirely  of 
legal  material;  two  others.  Exodus  and  Numbers,  are  a 
mixture  of  law  and  history;  Deuteronomy  is  made  up 
largely  of  addresses  embodying  laws;  and  even  Genesis, 
which  is  chiefly  narrative,  mentions  the  laws  of  marriage 
and  of  the  Sabbath  as  given  in  primeval  times,  gives 
regulations  concerning  food,  in  the  days  of  Noah,  and 
relates  the  institution  of  circumcision  in  the  time  of 
Abraham. 

Genesis 

The  book  of  Genesis  falls  naturally  into  two  parts : 
I.  The  Beginning  of  all  Things,  i.  i  to  1 1.  9.  Almost 
all  ancient  peoples  sought,  answers  to  the  questions, 
Whence  came  the  world?  Whence  came  man?  How 
did  sin  come  into  the  world?  How  did  different 
languages  and  nations  arise?  etc.  Gen.  i.  i  to  11.  9  con- 
tains the  answers  of  Hebrew  religious  thinkers  to  these 
questions.  The  chapters  tell  of  the  creation  of  heaven 
and  earth,  man's  original  habitation,  the  entrance  of  sin 
into  the  world,  the  beginnings  of  civilization,  and  the 
growth  of  population.  The  spread  of  sin  and  wickedness, 
following  the  development  of  civilization,  was  punished 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS  31 

by  a  Flood  which  destroyed  the  human  race  with  the 
exception  of  one  family;  the  descendants  of  this  family 
repeopled  the  earth  and  gave  rise  to  various  nations  and 
races. 

II.  The  Stories  of  the  Patriarchs.  11.  10  to  50.  26. 
From  the  beginning  of  things  in  general  the  book  passes 
to  the  beginnings  of  the  Hebrew  people,  in  which  the 
author  is  primarily  interested.  The  Hebrews  possess 
numerous  characteristics  common  to  the  group  of  nations 
called  the  Semitic  race.  The  racial  relations  of  the 
Hebrews  are  briefly  touched  upon  in  11.  10-26,  which 
traces  the  genealogy  of  Shem  down  to  Abraham,'^  whose 
migration  from  southern  Babylonia  to  Canaan  marks  the 
first  beginnings  of  the  Hebrew  people.  The  rest  of  the 
book  consists  of  narratives  centering  around  the  three 
patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  around  Joseph, 
the  favorite  son  of  Jacob.  The  lives  of  these  are  narrated 
with  considerable  fullness,  down  to  the  descent  of  the 
family  of  Jacob  into  Egypt,  with  an  account  of  which 
the  book  closes.  The  connecting  bond  throughout  the 
chapters  is  the  promise  to  Abraham^  and  the  covenant 
based  upon  it,  the  unfolding  of  which  is  exhibited  in  the 
lives  of  the  patriarchs  and  in  the  rise  of  the  twelve  tribes. 
The  successive  steps  in  the  development  are  connected, 
and  the  interest  is  concentrated,  by  the  use  of  the  formula, 
"These  are  the  generations  of":  Shem,  11.  10;  Terah 
(Abraham),  11.  2j\  Ishmael,  25.  12;  Isaac,  2,^.  19;  Esau, 
36.  1,9;  Jacob,  37.  2. 


^Genesis  gives  "Abram"  as  the  original  name  of  the  first  patri- 
arch ;  the  change  to  "Abraham"  was  due,  according  to  the  popular 
etymology  in  17.  5,  to  the  promise  that  the  bearer  of  the  name  was 
to  become  the  father  of  a  multitude  of  nations. 

*  Gen.  12. 1-3. 


32   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

I.    The  Beginning  of  All  Things  (1.1-11,9) 

1.  The  creation  of  all  things   (i.  i  to  2.25). 

2.  The  beginning  of  sin  (3.  1-24). 

3.  Early  growth  and  corruption   (4.1  to  6.8). 

(i)  The  first  murder   (4.  1-16). 

(2)  The  earliest  civilization  (4.  17-24). 

(3)  The  line  of  Seth   (4.25  to  5.32). 

(4)  The  apostate  sons  of  God   (6.1-8). 

4.  Noah  and  his  times   (6.9  to  9.29). 

(i)  The   flood    (6.9  to  9.17). 
(2)  Noah's  prophecy    (9.  18-29). 

5.  The  origin  of  nations  and  languages  (10.  i  to  11.  9). 

(i)  The  gradual  dispersion   (10. 1-32). 
(2)  The  confusion  of  tongues   (11.  1-9). 

II.    The  Stories  of  the  Patriarchs   (ii.io  to  50.26) 

1.  Abraham  and  Isaac  (11. 10  to  25.18). 

(i)  Abraham's  ancestry  (11.  10-32). 

(a)  Genealogy  of  Shem   (11. 10-25). 

(b)  Genealogy  of  Terah   (11.26-32). 

(2)  Migrations  of  Abraham  (12,  13). 

(3)  Abraham's  victory  over  the  kings  of  the  East  (14). 

(4)  Yahweh's  covenant  with  Abraham  (15). 

(5)  Birth  of  Ishmael  (16). 

(6)  Covenant  of  circumcision  (17). 

(7)  Destruction  of  Sodom    (18,   19). 

(8)  Abraham  and  Abimelech   (20). 

(9)  Birth  of  Isaac  (21). 

(10)  Proposed  sacrifice  of  Isaac   (22). 

(11)  Death  and  burial  of  Sarah  (23). 

(12)  Marriage  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah  (24). 

(13)  Death  of  Abraham  and  Ishmael  (25. 1-18). 

2.  Jacob  and  Esau  (25. 19  to  36.43). 

(i)  Jacob  and  Esau  (25.19  to  28.22). 

(2)  Jacob  and  Laban  (29.1  to  32.1). 

(3)  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan   (32.2  to  36.43). 

3.  Joseph  and  his  brothers  (37.  i  to  50.26). 

(i)  Joseph's  betrayal  and  exaltation  in  Egypt  (37. 1-36;  39.  i  to 
41- 57).     (Story  of  Tamar  and  Judah,  38.1-30.) 

(2)  Reunion  of  Joseph  and  his  brothers  (42.  i  to  45. 15). 

(3)  Descent  of  family  of  Jacob  into  Egypt   (45.16  to  48.22; 

49.29  to  50.26).     (The  Blessing  of  Jacob,  49.1-28.) 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS      33 

Exodus 

The  closing  chapters  of  Genesis  record  how  the  Hebrew 
nomads,  after  Hving  in  Canaan  for  several  generations, 
were  driven  by  famine  into  Egypt  and  were  settled  by 
the  Pharaoh  of  Egypt  in  Goshen,  a  district  in  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  Nile  Delta.  There  they  remained  in 
practical  seclusion  for  many  generations.  This  period  is 
passed  over  very  briefly  in  the  book  of  Exodus.^  In  the 
course  of  time  a  new  dynasty  ascended  the  throne  of 
Egypt,  under  which  a  period  of  oppression  set  in,  from 
which  the  Hebrews  were  delivered  under  the  leadership 
of  Moses.  The  opening  verses  of  Exodus — i.  i  to  2.  22 
— portray  the  the  experiences  of  the  Hebrews  during  the 
closing  years  of  the  stay  in  Egypt;  then  follows — 2.  23 
to  12.  29 — an  account  of  the  events  leading  up  to  their 
release  from  oppression.  Chapters  12.  30  to  19.  2  con- 
tain a  record  of  the  departure  from  Egypt,  the  overthrow 
of  the  pursuing  Egyptians,  and  the  march  of  the  Israelites 
until  they  reached  Mount  Sinai.  The  rest  of  the  book — 
19.  3  to  40.  38 — relates  some  incidents  during  the  en- 
campment before  Mount  Sinai,  but  the  greater  portion  is 
devoted  to  the  giving  of  the  Law. 

I.    The  Oppression  in  Egypt  (i.  i  to  2.22) 

1.  Death  of  Joseph;  increase  of  Israelites  (1.1-7). 

2.  Forced  labor  (1.8-14). 

3.  Murder  of  male  children   (i.  15-22). 

4.  Birth,  adoption,  and  flight  of  Moses  (2.1-22). 

II.    Preparation  for  the  Deliverance  (2. 23  to  12. 29) 

1.  Call  of  Moses  to  be  the  dehverer  (2.23  to  4.17). 

2.  Moses's  return  to  Egypt  (4. 18-31). 

3.  Increased  burdens  (5. 1-21), 

'Exod.  1.7. 


34   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

4.  Yahweh's  promise  to  Moses  and  Aaron    (5.22  to  6.13;  6.28  to 

^.^).     (Genealogy  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  6.14-27.) 

5.  The  plagues  and  the  Pharaoh's  stubbornness   (7.8  to  12.29). 

III.  The  Exodus  and  the  March  to  Mount  Sinai  (12.30  to  19.2) 

1.  Institution   of   the   Passover   and   departure    from   Egypt    (12.30 

to  13. 16). 

2.  From  Succoth  to  Elim,  through  the  Red  Sea  (13.  17  to  15.27). 

3.  From  Ehm  to  Mount  Sinai  (16.  i  to  19.2). 

(i)   Quails  and  Manna   (16. 1-36). 

(2)  War  with  Amalek  (17. 1-16). 

(3)  Visit  of  Jethro;  appointment  of  judges  (18. 1-27). 

(4)  Arrival  at  Mount  Sinai  (19- 1,  2). 


IV.    Giving  of  the  Lav^^  (i9-3  to  40.38) 

Establishment  and  ratification  of  the  Covenant  (19.3  to  24.18). 
(i)   Preparation  of  the  people   (19.3-25)- 

(2)  The  Decalogue   (20.1-21). 

(3)  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  (20.22  to  24. 18). 

(a)   Prohibition  of  images;  building  of  altars  (20.  22-26). 
(6)  Laws  concerning  the  protection  of  persons  (21.  1-32). 

(c)  Laws  concerning  the  protection  of  property    (21.33 

to  22. 17). 

(d)  Miscellaneous    laws    connected    with    the    civil    and 

religious  organization  (22. 18  to  23.  19). 

(e)  Blessings  of  obedience  (23.20-33). 
(/)   Ratification  of  the  Covenant  (24.1-8). 
(g)   Moses's  return  to  the  Mount   (24.9-18). 

Instruction  concerning  the  sanctuary  and  the  priests  (25.  i  to  31. 18) . 
(i)  Ark,  table  of  showbread,  candlestick   (25). 

(2)  Curtain,  framework,  veil,  screen  (26). 

(3)  Court,  altar  of  burnt-offering  {2^). 

(4)  Vestments  of  priests,  ritual  of  consecration  (28,  29). 

(5)  Altar  of  incense,  maintenance  of  public  service,  laver,  oil, 

incense  (30). 

(6)  Selection  of  Bezalel  and  Oholiab;  Sabbath  observance  (31). 
.  Apostasy  and  renewal  of  the  Covenant  (32.  i  to  34- 35)- 

(i)  The  golden  calf  and  Yahweh's  anger  (32). 

(2)  Moses's  intercession  and  Yahweh's  response  (33). 

(3)  Renewal  of  the  Covenant  (34). 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS  35 

4.  Execution  of  the  directions  in  chapters  25  to  31   (35.  i  to  40.38). 
(i)   Sabbath   observance,   contributions  of  people,   appointment 
of  Bezalel  and  Oholiab   (35.  i  to  36.  7). 

(2)  Curtains,  framework,  veil,  screen   (36.8-38). 

(3)  Ark,  table  of  showbread,  candlestick,  altar  of  incense,  oil, 

incense  (37). 

(4)  Altar    of    burnt-offering,    laver,    court,    amount    of    metal 

used   (38). 

(5)  Vestments    of    priests,    delivery    of    completed    work    to 

Moses  (39). 

(6)  Erection  of  tabernacle  (40). 

Leviticus 

The  book  of  Leviticus  contains  few  passages  cast  in 
narrative  form;  and  in  these  few  cases  the  narrative  is 
introduced  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  describing  the 
past  as  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  some  provision  for 
the  future.  The  book  is  almost  entirely  a  collection  of 
laws,  chiefly  ceremonial  or  priestly  in  nature;  hence  its 
name  "Leviticus,"  which  means,  the  Levitical  book.  An 
even  more  appropriate  title  is  found  in  the  Talmud,  "Law 
of  the  Priests." 

I.   Laws  Concerning  Sacrifices  and  Offerings  (i.  i  to  7.38) 

1.  Burnt-offerings  (i.  1-17). 

2.  Meal-offerings  (2. 1-16). 

3.  Peace-offerings  (3. 1-17). 

4.  Sin-offerings  (4.  i  to  5.  13). 

5.  Guilt  (or  trespass) -offerings  (5.  14  to  6.7). 

6.  Priestly  functions  in  connection  with  these  sacrifices,  and  other 

regulations   (6.8  to  7.38). 

II.     Consecration  of  the  Priests;   Sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu 
(8.  I  to  ID.  20) 

1.  Consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons   (8). 

2.  Aaron  offers  sacrifices   (9). 

3.  Sin  and  punishment  of  Nadab  and  Abihu   (lO.  1-7). 

4.  Priestly  duties  and  portions   (10.8-20). 


2,6      THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

III.  Laws  Concerning  Cleanness  and  Uncleanness  (ii.  i  to  15.  33) 

1.  Clean  and  unclean  animals  (li). 

2.  Uncleanness  connected  with  childbirth   (12). 

3.  Various  forms  of  "leprosy"  (13,  14). 

4.  Uncleanness  from  sexual  secretions  and  discharges   (15). 

IV.     The  Day  of  Atonement    (16. 1-34) 

V.    The  Law  of  Holiness  (17.  i  to  26.46) 

1.  Slaughter  of  animals;  prohibition  of  eating  of  blood    (17). 

2.  Prohibition  of  incest  and  other  forms  of  impurity   (18). 

3.  Religious  and  moral  behavior   (19). 

4.  Moloch  worship,  unlawful  marriage  and  other  offenses    (20). 

5.  Regulations  touching  priests  and  offerings   (21,  22). 

6.  Festivals  and  sacred  seasons  (23). 

7.  Light  of  the  sanctuary,  showbread,  blasphemy   (24). 

8.  Sabbatical  year  and  year  of  jubilee   (25). 

9.  Obedience  and  disobedience  and  their  consequences   (26). 

VI.     Appendix  :   Laws   Concerning   Vows,   Things   Devoted   and 
Tithes    {27. 1-34) 

Numbers 

The  book  of  Numbers  contains  an  account  of  Israel's 
wanderings  from  the  encampment  before  Mount  Sinai 
to  the  settlement  in  the  region  east  of  the  Jordan.  The 
opening  chapters  give  the  census  of  the  people  who  came 
out  of  Egypt.  Following  a  long  legal  section  comes  the 
record  of  the  wanderings  during  the  period  extending 
from  the  second  to  the  fortieth  year:  the  survey  of 
Canaan,  the  refusal  to  enter  the  land,  the  march  back  to 
the  wilderness,  and  various  rebellions.  The  important 
events  of  the  first  ten  months  of  the  fortieth  year  are 
narrated  in  detail :  the  march  around  Edom,  the  death  of 
Aaron,  the  conquest  of  the  land  of  the  Amorites  and  of 
Bashan,  the  episode  of  Balaam,  the  sin  of  Baal-peor,  the 
second  census,  the  slaughter  of  the  Midianites,  and  the 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS  Z7 

settlement  east  of  the  Jordan.     Interspersed  with  the 
historical  sections  are  laws  of  various  kinds. 

I.    Events  before  Mount  Sinai  (i.i  to  lo.  lo) 

(A  period  of  nineteen  days,  beginning  one  month  after  the  setting 
up  of  the  tabernacle;  compare  1. 1  with  Exod.  40.17.) 

1.  Census,  arrangement  of  camp,  functions  of  Levites  (i.  1 104.49). 

2.  Miscellaneous  laws  chiefly  concerning  purity  and  the  Nazirites, 

closing  with  the  priestly  blessing  (5.  1  to  (^.2^^. 

3.  Laws  regarding  the  services  of  the  sanctuary  (7.1  to  8.26). 

4.  The  supplementary  Passover  (9. 1-14). 

5.  The  cloud   over   the   tabernacle   and   the   silver   trumpet    (9. 15 

to  10. 10). 

II.    From  Mount  Sinai  to  the  Plains  of  Moab  (10.  ii  to  22.1) 

(From  the  twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second  year  to 
the   fortieth  year.) 

1.  Departure  from  Mount  Sinai   (10.  11-36). 

2.  Discouragements,  murmurings,  and  Yahweh's  displeasure   (11.  i 

to  14-45). 

3.  Various  ceremonial  laws  (15. 1-41). 

4.  Rebellion  and  punishment  of   Korah  and  his   company;   vindi- 

cation of  the  tribe  of  Levi  and  its  prerogatives  (16.  i  to  18.32). 

5.  Laws  of  purification   (19.  1-22). 

6.  From  Kadesh,  around  Edom,  to  the  Plains  of  Moab  (20.  i  to  22.  i). 

III.    In  the  Plains  of  Moab  {22.2  to  36.13) 
(The  closing  months  of  the  desert  wanderings.) 

1.  Israel  and  Moab;  Balak  and  Balaam  {22.2  to  24.25). 

2.  Apostasy  at  Shittim;  zeal  and  reward  of  Phinehas  (25. 1-18). 

3.  Second  census   (26. 1-65). 

4.  Appointment  of  Joshua  (27.12-23). 

(Law  of  inheritance,  27.  i-ii). 

5.  Laws    regarding    various    kinds    of    offerings    (28.1    to    29.40; 

Heb.  30.  i). 

6.  Conditions  of  validity  of  a  vow  (30.  1-16). 

7.  Slaughter  of  the  Midianites  and  division  of  booty  (31.1-54). 

8.  Settlement  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  of  Manasseh  east  of  the 

Jordan  (32.1-42). 


38   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

9.  Israel's  encampments  after  leaving  Egypt  (33- 1-49)- 
10.  Various  laws   relating  to  the   conquest  and   the   settlement  of 
Canaan  {33.  50  to  36. 13). 


Deuteronomy 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy  consists  chiefly  of  three 
discourses  purporting  to  have  been  delivered  by  Moses 
in  the  Plains  of  Moab.  The  first  contains  a  rehearsal  of 
the  history  from  Mount  Horeb  (Sinai)  to  the  Jordan. 
Then  follow  long  sections  setting  forth  the  laws  which 
the  Israelites  are  to  obey  when  they  are  settled  in  Canaan 
and  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  to  obey  them.  The  clos- 
ing chapters  deal  with  the  last  days  of  Moses :  his  charge 
to  Joshua,  the  Song  of  Moses,  the  Blessing  of  Moses, 
and  the  death  and  burial  of  Moses. 

I.    First  Discourse:  Yahweh's  Providential  Leadership  a 
Motive  for  Obedience  (i.  i  to  4.  43) 

1.  Introduction:  Time  and  place  of  the  discourses  (i.  1-5). 

2.  Retrospect  of  Israel's  history  from  Mount  Horeb  to  the  Jordan 

(1.6  to  3-29). 

3.  Exhortation  to  obedience   (4.1-40). 

4.  Cities  of  refuge  east  of  the  Jordan  (4.41-43). 

II.    Second  Discourse:  Exposition  of  the  Law 
(4.44  to  26.19;  28.1-68) 

1.  Introduction  to  the  exposition  of  the  Law  (4.44-49). 

2.  The  prophetic  Decalogue,   and  a   series   of   exhortations   based 

chiefly  on  the  first  commandment  (5.  i  to  11.32). 

3.  Ceremonial  and  religious  laws  (12.  i  to  i7-7)- 

4.  Appointment  and  duties  of  officials  (i7-8  to  18.22). 

5.  Criminal  laws   (19. 1-21;  21.  I-9). 

6.  Military  laws,  to  be  observed  in  time  of  war  (20. 1-20;  21.  10-14). 

7.  Miscellaneous  collection  of  civil,  criminal,  humane,  and  religious 

laws   (21. 15  to  25. 19). 

8.  Presentation  of  the  firstborn  and  the  triennial  tithe   (26. 1-19). 


THE  BOOKS  AND  THEIR  CONTENTS      39 

(Instructions  regarding  the  symbolical  acceptance  of  the  Law  after 
the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  27. 1-26.) 

9.  Consequences  of  obedience  and  disobedience  (28.1-68). 

III.  Third  Discourse:  Importance  of  Loyalty  to  Yahweh 

(29. 1  to  30. 20) 

1.  Exhortation   to   accept   the   Deuteronomic    Covenant    (29. 1-29 ; 

Heb.  29.2-30). 

2.  Promise  of  restoration   (30.I-10). 

3.  Present  choice  between  life  and  death   (30.11-20). 

IV.  Appendix:  The  Closing  Days  of  Moses  (31.  i  to  34-12) 

1.  Commission   of   Joshua;    delivery    of   the   Law   to   the   priests 

(31. 1-29). 

2.  The  Song  of  Moses  (31.30  to  32.44). 

3.  Final  commendation  of  the  Law  (32.45-47). 

4.  Command  for  Moses  to  ascend  Mount  Nebo  (32.48-52). 

5.  The  Blessing  of  Moses  (33.1-29). 

6.  Death  and  burial  of  Moses   (34. 1-12). 


CHAPTER  III 

glSTORY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCHAL 
CRITICISM 


CHAPTER  III 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCHAL 
CRITICISM 

Traditional  View  of  the  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
In  the  latest  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  it  seems  to 
be  assumed  that  the  Law,  or  Torah,  is  the  work  of 
Moses  ;^  but  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  in  these  passages 
Torah  is  used  of  the  entire  Pentateuch;  it  may  refer 
simply  to  the  legal  system  of  the  Hebrews  embodied  in 
the  Pentateuch, 

In  the  late  postexilic  period  Torah  (Law)  came  to  denote  the 
entire  Pentateuch;  from  this  usage  and  from  the  occurrence  of  the 
word  in  numerous  Old  Testament  books  outside  of  the  Pentateuch 
it  has  been  inferred  that  the  Pentateuch  existed  in  complete, 
written  form  at  the  time  the  books  using  the  term  were  written. 
Now,  if  Torah  and  Pentateuch  were  always  synonymous,  this 
would  be  valid  reasoning,  but  clearly  such  is  not  the  case,  for  there 
are  many  passages  in  which  Torah  cannot  be  identical  in  meaning 
with  Pentateuch,  and  cannot  even  refer  to  it.  The  etymology  of 
the  word  Torah  is  somewhat  uncertain;  but  there  seems  good 
reason  for  connecting  it  with  a  verb  meaning  "to  throw"  or  "to 
cast,"  which  is  used  of  the  casting  of  arrows,  both  in  battle  and, 
religiously,  for  the  purpose  of  casting  the  lot,  which  was  done  by 
throwing  arrows  on  the  ground  in  the  presence  of  the  Deity.  The 
casting  of  lots  was  a  primitive  method  of  determining  the  will  of 
the  Deity  f  from  which  usage  the  noun  received  its  primary  sig- 
nificance :  instruction  received  from  the  Deity  by  the  casting  of  the 
lot.     When  the  primitive  methods  of  determining  the  will  of  the 


'  Ezra  3. 2 ;  7.6;  2  Chron.  34. 14. 
*Ezek.  21.21;  Jonah  1.7,  etc. 

43 


44   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Deity  were  left  behind  and  more  spiritual  communion  was  estab- 
lished, the  noun  came  to  denote  every  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
Deity  whatever  the  method  or  means  of  its  revelation  or  apprehen- 
sion. When  the  separate  expressions  of  the  divine  will  came  to  be 
collected  and  put  in  writing— at  first  probably  in  small  collections— 
the  individual  items  as  well  as  the  collections  were  called  Torah. 
At  a  still  later  period,  when  it  was  seen  that  practically  the  whole 
legal  system  of  the  Hebrews  was  contained  in  the  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  Torah  came  to  be  used  to  designate  that  group  of 
books.'  The  significance  of  the  word  in  any  given  passage  must  be 
determined  from  the  context. 

Whatever  the  significance  of  these  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages may  be,  Philo  of  Alexandria^  and  Josephus^  proceed 
on  the  assumption  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch, 
and  the  same  seems  to  be  true  of  some  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers.^  The  Babylonian  Talmud'^  states  definitely : 
"Moses  wrote  his  own  book,  the  section  about  Balaam  and 
Job."  Only  the  last  eight  verses  of  Deuteronomy  are 
ascribed  to  Joshua,  on  the  reasonable  assumption  that 
Moses  would  hardly  have  written  in  his  lifetime  an 
account  of  his  own  death  in  the  words:  "And  he  died 
there."  ^  According  to  the  Gemara^  exposition  of 
this  passage,  at  least  one  rabbi  insisted  that  even  the 
closing  verses  came  from  Moses.  He  argued  that 
when  it  was  said:  "Take  this  book  of  the  law,"  ^^ 
the  book  must  have  been  complete,   and   consequently 

°  See  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  xxiv,  part  i,  pp.  1-16. 

*  c.  B.  C.  20  to  A.  D.  50 ;  Vita  Mosis,  iii,  39- 

"c.  A.  D.  37-100;  Contra  Ap.,  1,  18;  Ant.,  iv,  8,  48. 

'Matt.  8.  4;  Mark  7.  10;  Luke  20.  2,7)  John  5-  45-47;  7-  I9>  etc. 

''  Baba  bathra,  14b. 

'  Deut.  34-  5- 

"The  Talmud  contains  the  oral  laws  and  traditions  of  the  early 
Jews;  it  consists  of  two  parts,  the  Mishna,  which  contains  the  laws, 
and  the  Gemara,  which  is  in  the  nature  of  commentaries. 

'"Deut.  31. 26. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  45 

Moses  must  have  written  the  Torah  from  beginning  to 
end. 

The  relevant  section  in  the  Gemara  reads:  "The  author  [of  the 
Mishna  section]  said:  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  eight  verses  of 
the  Torah.  This  is  taught  according  to  him  who  says  of  the  eight 
verses  of  the  Torah,  Joshua  wrote  them.  For  it  is  taught :  And 
Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there.  How  is  it  possible  that 
Moses  died  and  wrote:  And  Moses  died  there?  It  is  only  unto  this 
passage  that  Moses  wrote;  afterwards  Joshua  wrote  the  rest. 
These  are  the  words  of  Rabbi  Jehuda,  others  say,  of  Rabbi  Nehe- 
miah ;  but  Rabbi  Simeon  said  to  him :  Is  it  possible  that  the  book 
of  the  Torah  could  lack  one  letter,  since  it  is  written :  Take  this 
book  of  the  Torah  ?  It  is  only  unto  this  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He !  said,  and  Moses  said  and  wrote ;  from  this  place  and  on- 
wards the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He  1  said,  and  Moses  wrote  with 


The  closing  verses  of  Deuteronomy  have  always 
proved  troublesome  to  those  who  were  anxious  to  main- 
tain the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form,  with  the  possible  exception  of  these  verses. 
If  they  insisted  that  Moses  wrote  the  account  of  his  own 
death  they  were  confronted,  as  Hobbes  suggests,^ ^  with 
the  strange  phenomenon  that  Moses,  speaking  of  his  own 
sepulcher,  declares  that  it  was  not  found  to  that  day 
wherein  he  was  yet  living.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they 
denied  these  verses  to  Moses,  it  could  be  only  on  the 
basis  of  internal  evidence;  and  if  such  evidence  was  ac- 
cepted as  conclusive  in  this  one  case,  there  seemed  to  be 
no  good  reason  why  it  might  not  have  to  be  considered 
decisive  in  other  cases. 

Criticism  to  the  Close  of  the  Reformation  Period. 
The  view  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch  main- 


"  Compare  C.  A.  Briggs,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture, 
p.  253. 

^^  Leviathan,  iii,  i^. 


46   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

tained  itself  without  serious  opposition  until  the  time  of 
the  Reformation.  The  objectors  were  few,  and  they 
exerted  little  influence.  Some  of  the  early  heretics  denied 
the  Mosaic  authorship,  in  part  on  critical  but  chiefly  on 
dogmatic  grounds.^  ^  In  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century  a 
Spanish  Jew,  Rabbi  Isaac  ben  Jasos,  pointed  out  that 
Gen.  36.  31  must  be  later  than  the  founding  of  the 
Hebrew  monarchy,  and  he  suggested  that  it  may  have 
been  written  during  the  religious  revival  under  Jehosha- 
phat.^*  In  the  twelfth  century  the  distinguished  Jewish 
scholar  Ibn  Ezra^^  called  attention  to  certain  passages 
which  seemed  difficult  to  harmonize  with  belief  in 
Mosaic  authorship.  His  words,  in  which  he  skillfully 
abstains  from  committing  himself,  read:  "If  you  pene- 
trate the  secret  of  the  twelve,^ ^  also  of  'and  Moses 
wrote' ^^  (Exod.  24.  4;  Num.  33.  2;  Deut.  31.  9,  22), 
and  'the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land'  (Gen.  12.  6), 
and  *in  the  mountain  of  the  Lord  he  appears'  (Gen. 
22.  14),  and  'his  bedstead  was  a  bedstead  of  iron'  (Deut. 
3.  11),  you  will  discover  the  truth."  ^* 

The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  mark  a  new 
epoch  in  biblical  criticism.  The  Renaissance  aroused 
men's  interest  in  literature  and  science,  the  Reformation 
aroused  men's  interest  in  religion  as  a  personal  experi- 
ence.   In  the  Renaissance  men  began  to  think  for  them- 


^^  The  philosopher  Celsus,  see  Origen,  Contra  Cels.,  iv,  42 ;  the 
Nazaraeans,  see  Joann.  Damasc,  De  haer.,  xix ;  Ptolemy,  a  Valen- 
tinian  Gnostic,  see  Epiphanius,  Adv.  haer.,  xxxiii,  4.  The  Clemen- 
tine Homilies  also  questioned  the  Mosaic  authorship,  iii,  47. 

"Compare  Studien  iind  Kritiken,  1832,  pp.  639ff. 

"c.  1 092- 1 1 67. 

"  Perhaps  Deut.  34. 1-12. 

"  Use  of  the  third  person. 

^^  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy,  i.  I. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  47 

selves  in  matters  of  science  and  literature ;  in  the  Refor- 
mation they  began  to  think  for  themselves  in  matters  of 
religion.  It  was  inevitable  that  the  awakening  of  thought 
and  the  substitution  of  reason  for  authority  in  science, 
secular  literature,  and  secular  history  should  ultimately 
affect  sacred  literature  and  sacred  history  as  well.  Some 
of  the  men  prominent  in  the  Reformation  movement 
advanced  views  which  later  investigation  has  confirmed 
and  expanded.  Karlstadt,  the  friend  and  coworker  of 
Luther,  questioned  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  style  of 
narrative  in  the  account  of  Moses's  death  was  the  same 
as  in  the  preceding  chapter;  from  which  he  argued  that 
if  Moses  did  not  write  the  account  of  his  own  death,  it 
could  not  be  considered  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  he 
did  not  write  the  entire  Pentateuch. ^^  Luther  admitted 
the  presence  of  post-Mosaic  elements  and  apparently  was 
little  disturbed  by  the  claim  that  Moses  may  not  have 
been  the  author  of  the  entire  Pentateuch.^^  Andreas 
Masius,  a  learned  Roman  Catholic,  maintained  that  the 
Pentateuch,  though  containing  Mosaic  elements,  received 
its  final  form  from  Ezra  or  some  other  man  of  God.^^ 
From  the  Period  of  the  Reformation  to  Astruc. 
The  general  church,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  did  not" 
adopt  the  liberal  attitude  of  these  leaders,  but  continued 
to  regard  belief  in  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch an  essential  article  of  faith.  But  the  facts  to  which 
earlier  writers  had  called  attention  continued  to  assert 
themselves;  hence  it  is  not  strange  that  some  thinkers 
not  in  sympathy  with  the  church  or  Christianity  should 


*  De  Canonicis  Scripturis,  p.  85. 
'  Pro'lectioncs  dc  Gen.,  on  36.31. 
Com.  in  Josuam   (publ.  1574),  Praef.,  p.  2. 


48   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

select  this  article  as  a  point  of  attack,  thinking  that  by- 
its  overthrow  they  could  demolish  the  whole  structure. 

The  pantheistic  philosopher,  B.  Spinoza,  who  rejected 
the  orthodox  view  that  the  Scriptures  contained  a  special 
divine  revelation,  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship;  he  sur- 
mised that  the  Pentateuch  and  the  other  historical  books 
attained  substantially  their  present  form  under  Ezra; 
but  he  admitted  that  the  text  might  have  suffered  cor- 
ruption even  after  his  death.^^  Similar  views  had  been 
expressed  a  few  years  earlier  by  the  English  deist 
Hobbes^^  and  by  Isaac  Peyrerius,  the  originator  of  the 
Pre-Adamite  theory,^* 

In  1678  appeared  A  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,^^ by  Richard  Simon,  a  Catholic  priest  in  Paris.^s 
His  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be 
summarized  as  follows :  As  was  the  case  in  other  Oriental 
states,  the  Hebrews  had  a  class  of  official  historiographers 
since  the  days  of  Moses.  These  men,  who  were  inspired 
prophets,  not  only  recorded  what  was  of  importance  in 
their  own  day,  but  altered,  enlarged,  or  abridged  the 
works  of  their  predecessors.  All  these  writings  were 
collected  by  Ezra  and  his  immediate  successors;  and 
from  the  material  thus  brought  together,  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  arranged  in  the  form  in  which 
they  are  now  extant. 

The  book  of  Simon,  a  work  of  great  learning  and  re- 

"Tractatus  Theologko-Politicus,  104-124  (publ.  1670).  The  spe- 
cific arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  this  view  are  those  already 
mentioned. 

^Leviathan,  iii,  23  (publ.  1651). 

'*  Systema   Theol.   ex  Prc^adamitarum   hypothesi,  iv,    I-2    (publ, 

1655). 

^Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament. 
"  1638-1712. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  49 

search,  was  condemned  and  confiscated,  but  it  produced 
a  lasting  impression.  The  Arminian  Clericus  also  ad- 
mitted the  presence  of  post-Mosaic  elements  and  for  a 
time  held  the  view  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form 
was  composed  by  the  priest  sent  from  Assyria  to  instruct 
the  colonists  in  Samaria  in  the  religion  of  Yahweh.^^ 
Anton  Van  Dale  distinguished  between  the  legal  and  his- 
torical sections  of  the  Pentateuch;  the  latter  he  believed 
to  have  been  composed  by  Ezra,  the  former  by  Moses, 
and  to  have  been  inserted  into  the  historical  framework 
by  Ezra.^^ 

The  permanent  value  of  these  and  similar  discussions 
lies  not  in  the  theories  proposed,  but  in  their  insistence 
upon  the  facts,  which  demanded  serious  consideration  by 
scholars.  Naturally,  the  attacks  of  the  men  named  upon 
the  traditional  positions  called  out  defenders;  the  more 
prominent  among  these  were  Huet,  a  Jesuit ;  Heidegger, 
a  Calvinist;  and  Carpzov,  a  Lutheran.  But  these  men, 
instead  of  meeting  the  problems  squarely,  spent  most  of 
their  energy  in  the  futile  attempt  to  explain  away  the 
facts.  Others,  admitting  the  presence  of  post-Mosaic 
elements,  did  not  consider  them  sufficiently  numerous  to 
militate  against  the  belief  in  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole;  they  explained  them  as  due 
to  interpolation  and  a  later  editing  of  the  work  by  Ezra 
and  others.^^ 


"^2  Kings  17.28,  29.  Sentimens  de  quclques  thcologiens  de  Hol- 
land sur  I'histoire  critique  du  Vicux  Testament,  pp.  107,  129  (publ. 
1685).  Later  he  explained  the  elements  which  could  not  be  har- 
monized with  Mosaic  authorship  as  due  to  interpolation. 

^^  De  origine  et  progressu  idolatricc,  p.  71  (publ.  1696);  and 
Epist.  ad  Morin.,  p.  686. 

^' Among  these  writers  the  more  prominent  were  DuPin,  Witsius, 
Spanheim,  Prideaut,  Vitringa,  Calmet. 


50   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Theory  of  Jean  Astruc.  Jean  Astruc,  physician  of 
Louis  XIV,  and  professor  of  medicine  in  Paris,  gave  new 
direction  to  critical  theories  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch.^*^  Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  several 
writers  had  suggested  that  Moses  used  older  sources  in 
the  composition  of  the  book  of  Genesis.^^  Following  out 
these  suggestions  Astruc  maintained  that  Moses  used 
several  sources,  which  he  incorporated  into  his  work 
practically  without  alterations.  Noticing,  further,  that  in 
some  sections  of  Genesis  the  divine  name  "Elohim"  was 
used  and  in  others,  "Yahweh,"  he  proceeded,  on  the  basis 
of  this  peculiarity,  to  analyze  the  book  into  two  principal 
sources— the  Elohistic  and  the  Yahwistic,  or  Jehovistic— 
admitting,  however,  the  presence  of  nine  or  ten  additional 
minor  sources,  of  which  only  fragments  were  preserved. 
Astruc  did  not  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Genesis  or 
of  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch;  his  view  was  that 
Moses  compiled  the  book  of  Genesis  from  the  older 
sources,  and  then  wrote  the  remaining  four  books. 

Modifications  and  Expansions  of  Astruc's  Theory. 
The  investigations  begun  by  Astruc  were  continued  dili- 
gently by  other  scholars.  J.  G.  Eichhorn^^  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  two  sources  marked  by  the  use 
of  different  divine  names  were  differentiated  also  by 


*"  He  set  forth  his  views  in  a  book  published  in  Brussels  in  1753, 
entitled  Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originaux  dont  il  paroit  que 
Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre  de  la  Genese. 

"Abbe  Fleury,  Moeurs  des  Israelites,  6  (publ.  1701)  ;  Vitringa, 
Observ.  Sacra,  IV,  2  (publ.  1722)  ;  Abbe  Laurent  Frangois,  Preuves 
de  la  Religion  de  Jesus  Christ  contra  les  Spinosistes  et  les  Deistes, 
I,  2  c.  3,  art.  7  (publ.  I75i)- 

"  Urgeschichte,  in  Repertorium,  IV,  V  (i779)  ;  Einleitung  in  das 
Alte  Testament  (1780-1783). 


PENTATEUCH AL  CRITICISM  51 

linguistic  characteristics.  W.  M.  L.  DeWette,^^  in  dis- 
cussing the  origin  of  the  documents  embodied  in  the 
Pentateuch,  pointed  out  that  Deuteronomy  is  shown  by- 
its  pecuHar  characteristics  to  be  quite  independent  of  the 
preceding  books,  and  he  assigned  it  to  the  age  of  Josiah. 
He  also  was  the  first  to  question,  in  connection  with 
critical  conclusions,  the  historicity  of  some  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  narratives.  F.  Bleek^*  brought  out  the  close  con- 
nection between  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua. 
H.  Ewald^^  showed  that,  though  after  Exodus  2  the 
peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names  ceases,  linguistic  char- 
acteristics make  it  evident  that  the  two  main  sources 
were  used  also  in  the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  F.  Tuch^^  insisted  that  the  Elohim  source  was  used 
also  in  Joshua.  K.  D.  Ilgen.^"^  and  later  H.  Hupfeld,^* 
distinguished  a  second  Elohim  source  in  Genesis,  and 
K.  H.  Graf^^  insisted  that  most  of  the  legislation  in 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers  was  later  than  that  in 
Deuteronomy.  These  scholars  and  their  successors,  the 
more  important  of  whom  are  mentioned  below,  have 
gradually  established  Pentateuchal  criticism  upon  a  firm, 
scientific  basis, 

^  Dissertatio  Critica  (1805)  ;  Kritischer  Versuch  ueber  die  Glaub- 
wuerdigkeit  der  Buecher  der  Chronik  (1806)  ;  Kritik  der  Mosaischen 
Geschichte  (1807)  ;  Lehrhuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung 
in  die  Bibel  Alien  und  Neuen  Testaments  (1817-1826). 

"In  Rosenmueller's  Repertorium  (1822)  and  in  Studien  und 
Kritiken  (1831).  As  early  as  1792  Geddes  expressed  a  similar 
opinion,  The  Holy  Bible,  vol.  i,  p.  xix. 

^  Ewald's  views  were  first  expressed  in  Studien  und  Kritiken 
(1831). 

"'Genesis  (1838). 

"  Urkunden  des  J erusalemschen  Tempelarchivs  (1798). 

*^  Die  Quellen  der  Genesis  und  die  Art  ihrer  Zusammensetzung 
(1853). 

"*  Die  geschichtlichen  Buecher  des  Alten  Testaments  (1866). 


52   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

In  the  course  of  the  investigations  various  theories 
have  been  proposed  to  account  for  the  compHcated  facts 
discovered  in  the  Pentateuch  : 

1.  The  Fragment  Theory.  Even  before  Astruc 
Peyrerius^*^  and  Spinoza^^  had  advocated  views  which 
might  be  classed  under  this  head ;  but  the  so-called  Frag- 
ment Theory  was  fully  developed  subsequently  to  Astruc, 
when  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  was  carried 
to  extremes.  This  theory  regarded  the  Pentateuch  as 
"an  agglomeration  of  longer  and  shorter  fragments,  be- 
tween which  no  threads  of  continuous  connection  could 
be  traced."  The  arguments  in  support  of  the  theory  were 
drawn  chiefly  from  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch, 
where  the  transitions  are  frequently  very  abrupt.  Among 
the  advocates  of  the  Fragment  Theory  A.  Geddes,^^  J.  S. 
Vater,*3  j^  ^  Hartmann,^^  and,  for  a  time,  W.  M.  L. 
DeWette^^  are  the  more  important. 

2.  The  Supplement  Theory.  The  better  apprecia- 
tion of  a  common  plan  and  purpose  running  throughout 
the  entire  Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch  made  the  permanent 
acceptance  of  the  Fragment  Theory  impossible.  It  was 
superseded  by  the  so-called  Supplement  Theory,  which 
seemed  to  do  better  justice  to  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
According  to  this  view,  the  Elohistic  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  the  oldest  portion,  which  served  as  ground- 


*°  See  above,  pp.  17,  18,  48. 

"  See  above,  p.  48. 

*'The  Holy  Bible,  I  (1792);  Critical  Remarks  on  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  I    (1800). 

*' Kommentar  uebcr  den  Pentateuch   (1802-1805). 

**  Historisch-kritische  Forschimgen  ueber  die  Bildung,  das  Zeit- 
alter,  und  den  Plan  dcr  fucnf  Buecher  Moses  (1831). 

*^Beitraege  zur  Einlcitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  I  (1806); 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1817). 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  53 

work  for  the  whole.  The  Elohistic  portion  was  revised 
by  a  later  editor,  the  Yahwist  or  Jehovist,  who  anno- 
tated the  older  work  throughout  and  added  to  it  a  con- 
siderable number  of  new  and  independent  sections. 
Deuteronomy  was  thought  to  be  the  latest  addition  to  the 
work.  Among  the  advocates  and  defenders  of  the  Sup- 
plement Theory  in  some  form  were  W.  M.  L.  DeWette,^^ 
F.  Bleek,4  7  H.  Ewald,^^  F.  Tuch,*^  j_  j^  Staehelin.^o 
A.  Knobel,^^  and,  for  a  time,  F.  Delitzsch.^^  While 
there  are  differences  in  details,  generally  speaking,  the 
composition  of  the  groundwork  was  assigned  to  the  period 
of  the  Judges  or  to  the  beginning  of  the  period  of  the 
monarchy;  the  Yahwistic  additions  were  variously  dated 
in  the  reigns  of  Saul,  or  of  Solomon,  or  of  Hezekiah; 
Deuteronomy  was  commonly  dated  in  the  seventh  century. 

It  must  not  be  thought,  however,  that  the  Supplement  Theory 
always  had  the  simple  form  here  indicated.  Sometimes  it  appeared 
as  a  combination  of  the  Supplement  Theory  with  the  Fragment 
Theory  plus  elements  taken  from  the  Document  Theory.  Ewald, 
for  example,  assumed  in  his  Geschichte  dcs  Volkes  Israel  (i843fif.), 
that  the  following  sources  were  used :  I,  A  few  passages  coming 
from  Moses;  2,  the  book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh;  3,  a  biography 
of  Moses  written  soon  after  his  death;  4,  the  book  of  the  Covenants 
written  in  the  days  of  Samson;  5,  the  book  of  the  "generations," 
coming  from  the  days  of  Solomon;  6,  the  book  of  a  prophetic 
narrator  living  in  the  days  of  Elijah;  7,  the  work  of  a  second 
prophetic  narrator  writing  about  800;  8,  a  compilation  of  all  these, 
made  about  750,  by  a  third  prophetic  narrator,  who  added  some 
material  of  his  own;  9,  several  additions,  of  which  Deuteronomy, 
in  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century,  was  the  most  important. 


*^  In  the  later  editions  of  his  Lehrhuch  der  historisch-kritischen 
Einleitimg,  especially  editions  5    (1840)   and  6   (1845). 

"Especially  in  De  libri  Gen.  origine  at  que  indole  historica  (1836). 

*"  Studien  und  Kritiken  (1831). 

*^  Kommentar  ueber  die  Gen.  (1838). 

^  Kritische  Untcrsiichungen  ueber  den  Pentateuch   (1843). 

'"^ Die  Genesis  Erklaert  (1852).  ^"Genesis  (1852). 


54   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

3.  The  Document  Theory.  The  discovery  by  Hup- 
feld  in  1853  of  a  second  Elohim  source  necessitated  a 
modification  of  the  Supplement  Theory.  Moreover,  a 
closer  study  of  the  interrelation  of  the  different  layers 
in  the  Pentateuch  showed  that  theory  to  be  inadequate. 
Its  place  was  taken  by  what  is  generally  known  as  the 
Document  Theory,  because  it  considers  the  Pentateuch 
in  its  present  form  to  be  the  result  of  the  compilation  of 
material  coming  from  at  least  four  documents,  each  of 
which  is  thought  to  have  had  originally  an  independent 
existence.^^  The  earlier  advocates  of  the  Document 
Theory  used  a  variety  of  symbols  to  designate  the  dif- 
ferent sources,  but  at  present  the  four  documents  are 
generally  known  as  J — the  Jehovistic  document,  that  is, 
the  document  characterized  by  the  use  of  the  divine  name 
"Jehovah"  or  "Yahweh"  in  the  sections  narrating  events 
preceding  the  call  of  Moses ;  E — the  Elohistic  document, 
that  is,  the  document  using  the  divine  name  "Elohim" 
in  the  corresponding  sections;  D — Deuteronomic  Code, 
furnishing  the  heart  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy;  P — 
Priestly  Code,  a  document  combining  history  and  law, 
written  from  a  distinctively  priestly  standpoint.  These 
four  documents  in  turn  are  thought  to  embody  older 
sources  which  had  an  independent  existence  either  in 
written  or  oral  form. 

4.  The  Graf-Wellhausen  Theory.     The  Docu- 
ment Theory  is  the  prevailing  theory  at  the  present  time ; 


'^In  a  sense  the  theories  already  described  might  be  called  Docu- 
ment Theories,  because  they  too  recognize  the  presence  of  material 
from  several  sources,  but  the  names  given  to  them  are  more 
descriptive  of  their  outstanding  characteristics.  The  same  is  true 
in  this  case:  the  use  of  the  four  originally  independent  documents 
is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  compilation  according  to  this 
theory. 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  55 

but  in  the  course  of  its  history  it  has  passed  through 
various  modifications,^*  The  form  in  which  it  is  most 
widely  accepted  among  scholars  to-day  is  known  as  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  Theory,  or  the  Development  Theory. 
In  its  general  positions  this  theory  was  first  advocated 
in  1835  by  W.  Vatke'^^  and  J.  F.  L.  George,^^  but  as 
presented  then  it  exerted  little  influence,  perhaps  because 
of  its  Hegelian  point  of  view.  But  even  before  that  date, 
in  1833  or  1834,  Edward  Reuss,  following  somewhat  in 
the  footsteps  of  DeWette,  called  attention  in  his  lectures, 
at  the  University  of  Strassburg,  to  the  fact  that  the 
history  of  Israel  as  outlined  in  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings 
contained  much  that  seemed  to  conflict  with  the  theory 
that  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were  in  force  among  the 
people  during  the  centuries  described  in  those  books.  He 
further  maintained  that  the  Mosaic  Code  was  utterly 
unknown  to  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  seventh  cen- 
turies, that  Jeremiah  was  the  first  prophet  who  shows 
acquaintance  with  a  written  law  (Jer.  2.  8;  18.  18,  etc.), 
and  that  his  quotations  are  exclusively  from  Deuter- 
onomy. This  book,  or  at  least  its  central  portion 
(4.  45-28.  68),  he  thought  to  have  been  the  book  "found" 
in  the  temple  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  and  he  looked  upon 
that  code  as  the  most  ancient  part  of  the  codified  legis- 
lation contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  According  to  his 
view,  Ezekiel  lived  prior  to  the  redaction  of  the  ritual 


"*  This  is  true  especially  with  regard  to  the  order  in  which  the 
several  documents  originated.  The  earlier  writers,  Hupfeld,  E. 
Schrader — in  DeWette's  Einleitimg,  8th  ed.  1869,  Th.  Noeldeke — 
Untersuchungen  zur  Kritik  des  Alien  Testaments,  1869,  and  others, 
considered  P  the  oldest  document;  others,  like  A.  Dillmann,  gave 
first  place  to  E. 

■"*  Die  aelteren  Juedischen  Fesfe. 

^  Die  Religion  des  Alt  en  Testaments,  i. 


56   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

code  and  of  the  laws  which  were  formulated  by  the 
hierarchy. 

The  views  of  Reuss  were  not  published  until  1879. 
Meanwhile  a  former  pupil  of  Reuss,  K.  H.  Graf,  had 
published  similar  views,  which  were  further  developed 
by  A.  Kayser,  A.  Kuenen,  and  most  brilliantly  of  all,  by 
Julius  Wellhausen.  According  to  these  scholars,  the 
four  documents  originated  in  the  order  J,  E,  D,  P,  and 
their  dates,  not  counting  later  additions,  were  approxi- 
mately: J,  850;  E,  750;  D,  650;  P,  500-450." 

Modern  scholars,  with  few  exceptions,  accept  in  all 
essentials  the  conclusions  of  the  Graf- Wellhausen  school 
regarding  the  order  and  dates  of  the  Pentateuchal  docu- 
ments.^^    The  priority  of   P   is  universally  given   up; 


"  The  more  important  works  of  these  pioneers  are :  E.  Reuss, 
L'Histoire  Sainte  et  La  Loi  (1879)  ;  K.  H.  Graf,  Die  geschichtlichen 
Buccher  des  Alien  Testaments  (1866)  ;  A.  Kayser,  Das  vorexilische 
Buck  der  Urgeschichte  (1874)  ;  A.  Kuenen,  Godsdienst  van  Israel 
(1869,  1870)  ;  J.  Wellhausen,  Geschichte  Israels,  i  (1878)  ;  Composi- 
tion des  Hexateiichs,  first  in  Jahrbuecher  fuer  Deutsche  Theologie 
(1876-1877),  republished  as  vol.  ii  of  Skiszen  und  Vorarbeiten 
(1885).  Mention  should  also  be  made  of  J.  W.  Colenso,  The 
Pentateuch   and   the   Book   of  Joshua   Critically  Examined    (1862- 

1879). 

"Among  the  more  prominent  writers  on  Old  Testament  subjects 
who  accept  the  general  literary  conclusions  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
school  may  be  named :  Duhm,  Stade,  Smend,  Marti,  Budde,  Cornill, 
Baentsch,  Bertholet,  Kautzsch,  Steuernagel,  W.  R.  Smith,  G.  A. 
Smith,  Driver,  G.  B.  Gray,  Skinner,  J.  E.  McFadyen,  H.  P.  Smith, 
G.  F.  Moore,  J.  P.  Peters,  W.  R.  Harper,  and  many  more.  Of 
special  discussions  of  the  Pentateuchal  criticism  which  represent 
this  theory,  may  be  named,  in  addition  to  those  already  enumerated: 
A.  Westphal,  Les  sources  du  pentatcuque  (i888fif.)  ;  W.  B.  Bacon, 
The  Genesis  of  Genesis  (1892),  and  The  Triple  Tradition  of  the 
Exodus  (1894)  ;  W.  E.  Addis,  The  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch 
(vol.  i,  1893 ;  vol.  ii,  1898)  ;  H.  Holzinger,  Einleitung  in  den  Hexa- 
teuch (1893) ;  C.  Steuernagel,  Allgemeine  Einleitung  in  den  Hexa- 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  57 

but  there  are  a  few  eminent  scholars,  among  them 
Kittel,^^  Graf  Baudissin,^^  and  Koenig,^^  who  consider 
E  older  than  J,  and  some  who  date  P  earlier  than  D.^^ 
There  are  also  some  who,  while  accepting  the  Document 
Theory  in  some  form,  assign  the  documents  embodied  in 
the  Pentateuch  to  dates  much  earlier  than  those  favored 
by  the  Graf-Wellhausen  school. ^^ 

Recent  Developments.  The  efforts  to  determine  the 
dates  of  the  completed  documents  were  followed  by  at- 
tempts to  fix  the  age  of  the  material  embodied  in  these 
documents.  The  earlier  adherents  of  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen school  were  inclined  to  assign  not  only  the  com- 
pleted documents  but  practically  all  the  material  embodied 


tcuch  (1900)  ;  A.  Merx,  Die  Bucchcr  Mose  und  Josua  (1907)  ; 
I.  Benzinger,  VVie  wurden  die  Juden  das  Volk  des  Gcsetzcs?  (1908). 
The  English  text  of  the  Pentateuch,  arranged  according  to  the 
principal  sources,  is  found  in  J.  E.  Carpenter  and  G.  Harford- 
Battersby,  The  Hexatench,  vol.  ii  (1900)  ;  vol.  i,  which  is  devoted  to 
a  discussion  of  the  critical  questions,  is  published  separately  under 
the  title,  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch.  A  similar  arrange- 
ment is  found  in  C.  F.  Kent,  The  Student's  Old  Testament,  especially 
the  volumes  on  Beginnings  of  Hebrew  History  (1904)  and  Israel's 
Laws  and  Legal  Precedents  (1907). 

""  Geschichte  der  Hcbraer,  I  (1888). 

'°  Einleitimg  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1901). 

"  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1893). 

°"  A.  Dillmann,  in  his  revision  of  the  commentaries  on  the  books 
of  the  Hexateuch  by  A.  Knobel  (iSSoff.)  ;  R.  Kittel,  in  the  volume 
mentioned  in  note  (59),  and  in  the  Theologische  Studien  aus  Wuert- 
temberg  (1881,  1882)  ;  but  the  latter  approaches  more  nearly  to  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  school  in  the  2d  ed.  of  the  Geschichte  (1909-1912)  ; 
W.  W.  Graf  Baudissin  in  the  volume  mentioned  in  note  (60),  and  in 
Geschichte  des  alttestamcntlichen  Priestertums  (1889)  ;  E.  Riehm, 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  edited  by  A.  Brandt  (1889,  1890)  ; 
H.  L.  Strack,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1883)  ;  and  others. 

°^E.  Koenig,  for  example,  gives  the  dates:  E,  1200;  J,  1000; 
D,  700-650;  Sellin,  J,  1000-950;  E,  950,  revised  c.  850;  D,  c.  700, 
the  reform  under  Hezekiah;  P,  500. 


58   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

in  them  to  relatively  late  dates.  Later  investigations  have 
clearly  shown  that  much  of  the  material,  both  historical 
and  legal,  must  have  been  handed  down,  orally  or  in 
written  form,  from  very  early  times.^* 

It  would  be  erroneous  to  think  that  no  voices  were 
raised  against  the  modern  views  in  general,  and  against 
the  prevailing  Document  Theory  in  particular.  Hengsten- 
berg,  Haevernick,  Keil,  Green,  and  others  did  their  best 
to  uphold  or  reestablish  the  traditional  views,^^  Others, 
while  admitting  some  truth  in  the  newer  views,  proposed 
rival  theories,  which,  their  authors  believed,  would  ex- 
plain all  the  facts  without  departing  so  far  from  tradi- 
tional views.  A,  Klostermann,^^  for  example,  followed 
in  many  points  by  James  Orr,*^''^  holds  that  the  ground- 


"*  H.  Gunkel,  Schoepfung  und  Chaos  in  Urceit  und  Endseit  (1895)  ; 
Genesis  (1902)  ;  A.  Merx,  Die  Buecher  Mose  und  Josua  (1907). 
H.  Winckler,  in  numerous  publications,  especially — in  cooperation 
with  H.  Zimmern — in  the  third  edition  of  E.  Schrader,  Die  Keilin- 
schriften  und  das  Alte  Testament  (1902,  1903)  ;  A.  Jeremias,  Das 
Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  alien  Orient  (1904;  English  trans- 
lation 191 1 )  ;  R.  Kittel,  Die  alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft  in  ihren 
wichtigsten  Ergebnissen  (1910;  English  translation  1910)  and  in  the 
2d  ed.  of  his  Geschichte;  and  many  others. 

'"The  following  are  of  greatest  interest  in  this  connection: 
E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Authentie  des  Pentateuchs  (1836-1839)  ; 
H.  A.  C.  Haevernick,  Handbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament  (1836-1849)  ;  F.  H.  Ranke,  Untersuchungen 
tieber  den  Pentateuch  (1834-1840)  ;  J.  K.  F.  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der 
historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1853);  A. 
Zahn,  Das  Deuteronomium  (1890),  and  Ernste  Blicke  in  den  Wahn 
der  modernen  Kritik  des  Alten  Testaments  (i893ff.)  ;  W.  H.  Green, 
The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  (1895)  ;  and  The  Unity  of 
the  Book  of  Genesis  (1895)  ;  E.  Rupprecht,  Das  Raetsel  des  Fuenf- 
buches  Moses  (1895-1897),  and  Wissenschaftliches  Handbuch  der 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament   (1898). 

'^  Der  Pentateuch  (1893,  neue  Folge,  1907). 

"  The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  (1906). 


PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  59 

work  of  the  Pentateuch  is  a  Mosaic  production,  historical 
and  legal,  which  was  regularly  read  before  the  people — 
J.  In  the  course  of  time  this  early  document  received 
minor  additions  and  underwent  various  modifications — 
E;  until  there  were  current  two  distinct  recensions  of 
the  original  work.  Twice  it  received  more  extensive 
additions,  the  first  under  Solomon,  at  which  time  were 
added  the  Levitical  regulations  and  the  related  historical 
sections — P ;  the  other  under  Josiah,  when  Deuteronomy 
was  added — D, 

A  somewhat  different  theory  is  advocated  by  B.  D, 
Eerdmans.^^  According  to  him,  the  kernel  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  an  Adam  book — beginning  Gen.  5.  i — or  a  Jacob 
recension  of  the  same — compare  Gen,  37.  2 — which  was 
originally  polytheistic  and  arose  before  B.  C.  700.  Mean- 
while an  Israel  recension  of  the  same  work,  also  poly- 
theistic, had  been  made,  which,  before  the  discovery  of 
Deuteronomy,  was  interwoven  with  the  Jacob  recension. 
After  the  finding  of  Deuteronomy  the  combined  work 
was  revised  from  the  standpoint  of  monotheism,  and  in 
postexilic  times  it  received  further  additions. 

In  part  at  least  the  opposition  of  these  and  other  recent 
writers  to  the  generally  accepted  view  is  based  upon  the 
alleged  uncertainty  of  the  critical  analysis  of  the  Penta- 
teuch underlying  the  conclusions  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
school.  The  findings  of  Astruc,  which  mark  the  first 
stage  in  the  development  of  the  Document  Theory,  were 
based  upon  the  discovery  of  a  significant  alternation  in 
the  use  of  the  divine  names  "Yahweh"  and  "Elohim"  in 
different  parts  of  the  book  of  Genesis.    Taking  this  "dis- 


**  Alitesfameniliche  Studien,  i,  Genesis  (1908);  ii,  Die  Vorge- 
schichte  Israels  (1908);  iii,  Exodus  (1910).  For  a  criticism  of 
Eerdmans,  see  ZATW,  1910,  pp.  245ff. ;  191 1,  pp.  44ff. 


6o   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

covery"  as  a  starting  point,  there  have  been  various 
attempts  made  in  recent  years  to  prove,  chiefly  from  the 
ancient  translations,  foremost  among  them  the  Septua- 
gint,  that  the  accepted  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  so 
uncertain  that  no  analysis  of  documents  can  be  based 
upon  it.  It  follows  that  if  the  critical  analysis  is  faulty, 
any  theory  resting  upon  it  loses  its  chief  support;  and 
the  way  is  cleared  for  a  new  analysis  and  a  new  theory 
or  new  theories.''^ 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  these  more  recent 
theories  are  a  combination  of  the  Supplement  Theory  and 
a  modified  Document  Theory.  Unfortunately,  as  Pro- 
fessor Skinner  has  pointed  out  so  clearly,  the  textual- 
critical  foundations  so  essential  for  the  newer  views  are 
rather  insecure.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that,  though 
it  may  be  admitted  that  many  questions  of  Pentateuchal 
criticism  are  still  unsettled  and  that  some  of  the  opinions 
now  held  may  have  to  be  modified,  the  Document  Theory 
as  presented  in  its  main  outlines  by  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
school,  has  still  the  better  of  the  argument. 


**  Klostermann  called  attention  to  the  textual  uncertainties  in 
1893;  other  authors  following  in  his  footsteps  are:  J.  Lepsius, 
several  articles  in  Reich  Christi  (1903)  ;  J.  Dahse,  in  Archiv  fuer 
Religionswissenschaft  (1908)  ;  more  fully  in  Die  Gottcsnamen  in 
Genesis  (1912)  and  Wie  erklaert  sich  der  gegenwaertige  Zustand 
der  Genesis?  (1913)  ;  H.  A.  Redpath,  in  American  Journal  of 
Theology,  1904;  B.  D.  Eerdmans,  Alttcstamentliche  Stiidien  (1908- 
1910)  ;  A.  Troelstra,  De  Naam  Gods  in  den  Pentateuch,  translated 
into  English,  The  Name  of  God  in  the  Pentateuch  (1912)  ;  H.  M. 
Wiener,  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism  (1910)  ;  The  Origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  (1910)  ;  Pentateuchal  Studies  (1912),  and  numerous 
articles  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra.  See  also  I ytter national  Standard 
Bible  Encyclopcedia,  art.  "Pentateuch."  A  thorough-going  discus- 
sion of  the  views  expressed  by  these  writers  is  given  by  J.  Skinner 
in  five  articles  in  the  Expositor  (1913),  published,  with  additions, 
in  book  form  under  the  title  The  Divine  Names  in  Genesis  (1914). 


CHAPTER  IV 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

I,     Indirect  Evidence 


CHAPTER  IV 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

I.     Indirect  Evidence 

An  adequate  discussion  of  the  authorship  and  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch  requires  a  consideration  of  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  and  are  being  advanced  in  favor 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  con- 
venience sake  these  arguments  are  here  arranged  in  four 
groups:  I.  Indirect  Evidence.  2.  External  Evidence. 
3.  Direct  Internal  Evidence.  4.  Indirect  Internal  Evi- 
dence.^ The  present  chapter  is  devoted  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  Indirect  Evidence,  which  is  presented  under 
three  heads : 

I.  Lack  of  Unanimity  among  the  Critics.^  This  lack 
of  unanimity,  it  is  claimed,  proves  conclusively  that  the 
working  principles  and  methods  of  these  scholars  are 
faulty;  but  if  they  use  in  their  investigations  faulty 
methods  and  principles,  their  conclusions  cannot  be  con- 
sidered well  founded  and,  therefore,  must  be  rejected.^ 

Now,  assuming   for  the  sake  of  argument  that  the 

*  Following,  in  a  general  way,  the  arrangement  of  the  discussion 
in  F.  E.  Gigot,  Special  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i. 

'That  is,  the  scholars  holding  nontraditional  views  regarding 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

*  Perhaps  no  recent  writer  has  made  more  ingenious  use  of  these 
alleged  disagreements  than  James  Orr,  in  The  Problem  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

63 


64   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

alleged  disagreements  are  real,  must  they  be  traced  to  the 
use  of  faulty  methods  and  principles?  In  investigations 
of  this  sort  lack  of  agreement  in  conclusions  may  be  due 
to  one  or  the  other  of  two  causes :  either  to  the  use  of 
faulty  methods  and  principles,  or  to  a  lack  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  decisive  data  on  the  basis  of  which  the  ques- 
tions must  be  settled.  What,  then,  is  the  working  prin- 
ciple and  method  of  modern  critical  investigation?  In 
the  words  of  J.  E.  McFadyen,  it  is  "the  free  and  reverent 
study  of  all  the  biblical  facts."  *  It  is  study,  which  means 
careful  investigation  rather  than  superficial  reading  fol- 
lowed by  hasty,  unfounded  conclusions.  The  investiga- 
tion is  free,  in  the  sense  that,  though  it  is  not  disrespectful 
to  traditional  beliefs,  it  is  not  prevented  by  them  from 
marking  out  new  paths  if  the  facts  so  demand.  It  is 
reverent,  because  it  deals  with  a  book  that  has  played  a 
unique  part  in  the  religious  life  and  thought  of  many 
centuries  and  has  been  and  is  received  as  a  book  in  which 
the  voice  of  God  may  be  heard.  It  is  primarily  a  study  of 
the  facts  presented  in  the  book,  not  of  theories  or  specu- 
lations, though  in  the  study  of  the  facts  much  may  be 
learned  from  the  theories  of  the  past,  and  the  study  may 
give  rise  to  new  theories.  In  order  to  be  thoroughly 
scientific  it  must  have  due  regard  for  all  the  facts  in 
the  case. 

In  the  question  under  consideration,  then,  the  method 
or  principle  of  procedure  is  the  careful,  scientific  exam- 
ination of  all  the  facts  that  throw  light  on  the  authorship 
and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  Surely,  this  cannot 
be  a  faulty  method  of  procedure;  and  if  there  is  dis- 
agreement in  conclusions,  it  cannot  be  charged  to  the 
use  of  faulty  working  principles. 

*  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church,  p.  47. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  65 

On  the  other  hand,  disagreement  in  conclusions  may 
be  due  to  a  lack  of  sufficient  decisive  data.  The  facts  to 
be  examined  may  be  few  in  number  or  they  may  be 
open  to  more  than  one  interpretation.  In  such  case  it  is 
to  be  expected  that  the  personal  element — personal  prefer- 
ence or  prejudice — should  make  itself  felt  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  few  or  indecisive  facts :  a  conclusion 
appealing  to  one  person  as  well  founded  may  be  rejected 
by  another  as  unwarranted.  It  is  well  to  heed  the  words 
of  caution  written  by  one  of  the  most  eminent  Old  Testa- 
ment scholars,  recently  deceased :  "In  the  critical  study  of 
the  Old  Testament  there  is  an  important  distinction  which 
should  be  kept  in  mind.  It  is  that  of  degrees  of  proba- 
bility. The  probability  of  a  conclusion  depends  upon 
the  nature  of  the  grounds  upon  which  it  rests ;  and  some 
conclusions  reached  by  critics  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
for  this  reason  more  probable  than  others,  the  facts  at 
our  disposal  being  in  the  former  case  more  numerous 
and  decisive  than  in  the  latter.  It  is  necessary  to  call 
attention  to  this  difference,  because  writers  who  seek  to 
maintain  the  traditional  view  of  the  structure  of  the  Old 
Testament  sometimes  point  to  conclusions  which,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  are  uncertain,  or  are  propounded 
avowedly  as  provisional,  with  the  view  of  discrediting  all, 
as  though  they  rested  upon  a  similar  foundation."  ^  And 
again :  "It  is  in  the  endeavor  to  reach  definite  conclu- 
sions upon  the  basis  either  of  imperfect  data,  or  of 
indications  reasonably  susceptible  of  divergent  interpre- 
tations, that  the  principal  disagreements  between  the 
critics  have  their  origin.     Language  is  sometimes  used 


°  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  iv. 


66   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

implying  that  critics  are  in  a  state  of  internecine  conflict 
with  one  another  or  that  their  conclusions  are  *in  a  con- 
dition of  perpetual  flux.'  Such  statements  are  not  in 
accordance  with  the  facts.  There  is  a  large  area  on 
which  the  data  are  clear:  here,  accordingly,  critics  are 
agreed,  and  their  conclusions  are  not  likely  ever  to  be 
reversed.  And  this  area  includes  many  of  the  most 
important  results  criticism  has  reached.  There  is  an  area 
beyond  this,  where  the  data  are  complicated  and  am- 
biguous; and  here  it  is  no  more  than  natural  that  inde- 
pendent judges  should  differ."  «  Wherever,  therefore, 
real  differences  of  opinion  are  found  they  are  due,  not  to 
the  use  of  faulty  principles,  but  to  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  available  evidence. 

Points  of  Agreement,  It  should  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that  the  disagreements  have  been  greatly  exagger- 
ated and  overemphasized.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  on  all 
the  main  points  under  discussion,  regarding  which  the 
data  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  decisive,  there  is 
general  agreement  among  scholars,  even  among  those 
representing  what  may  be  called  different  schools.  There 
is  practical  unanimity,  for  example,  on  points  like  these : 

I.  The  composite  character  of  the  Pentateuch  or  the 
Hexateuch,  as,  indeed,  of  all  the  so-called  historical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  "In  the  hght  of  all  these  facts," 
says  McFadyen,  "the  general  possibility,  if  not  the  prac- 
tical certainty,  of  the  compositeness  of  the  historical 
books  may  be  conceded."  "^  Even  W.  H.  Green  admits 
the  possibility  of  compilation.     He  says:  "By  the  unity 


•  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  vi. 

'  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church,  p.  143. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  67 

of  the  Pentateuch  is  meant  that  it  is  in  its  present  form 
one  continuous  work,  the  product  of  a  single  writer.  This 
is  not  opposed  to  the  idea  of  his  having  had  before  him 
written  sources  in  any  number  or  variety,  from  which  he 
may  have  drawn  his  materials,  provided  the  composition 
was  his  own."  ^ 

2.  The  use  of  four  principal  sources,  now  commonly 
designated  J,  E,  D,  P.  Each  of  these  is  thought  to  have 
reached  its  final  form  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Moses, 
but  each  of  them  is  supposed  to  contain  material  con- 
siderably older  than  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
document  as  a  whole.  E.  Sellin,  a  very  cautious  and 
conservative  scholar,  assigns  the  highest  degree  of  proba- 
bility to  the  view  which  claims  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a 
compilation  of  material  from  four  originally  separate 
historical-legal  sources,  the  oldest  of  which,  he  thinks, 
assumed  written  form,  at  the  earliest,  near  the  beginning 
of  the  period  of  the  monarchy.*^  Even*  scholars  who,  like 
Orr,  question  the  existence  of  four  independent  docu- 
ments, recognize  "evident  signs  of  different  pens  and 
styles,  of  editorial  redaction,  of  stages  of  compilation."  ^^ 

3.  The  presence  in  P,  whatever  its  date,  of  an  inde- 
pendent code  of  laws,  found  chiefly  in  Lev.  17  to  26. 
Graf  was  the  first  to  call  attention  to  this  unique  group 
of  laws,  and  Klostermann  furnished  the  appropriate  title 
"Heiligkeitsgesetz,"   which  means   "Law  of   Holiness," 


^Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  59. 

*  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  18.  On  p.  16  he  uses  these 
emphatic  words :  "So  ist  das  Eine  ein  absolut  feststehendes  wissen- 
schaftliches  Faktum:  der  Pentateuch  ist  erst  in  der  nachmosaischen 
Zeit  aus  einer  Mehrheit  in  Palaestina  geschriebener  Quellen  zusam- 
mengewachsen.  Das  ist  die  unverrueckbare  Basis  auf  der  die 
protestantische   Pentateuchforschung   von   heute   einmuetig   steht." 

'"James  Orr,  The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  369flf;, 


68      THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

because  the  fundamental  requirement  is  that  Israel  should 
be  holy  because  Yahweh  is  holy.^^ 

4.  The  detailed  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  into  P,  D, 
and  the  combined  JE.  The  interweaving  of  J  and  E  is 
so  complete  that  it  is  much  more  difficult  to  separate 
them,  though  even  on  this  point  there  is  coming  to  be 
greater  unanimity. 

5.  The  presence  in  the  Pentateuch  of  three  distinct 
legal  codes — the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  and  the  Priestly  Code — belonging  to  different 
periods  and  representing  different  stages  of  political, 
social,  and  religious  development. 

6.  J  and  E  are  older  than  D ;  and  modern  scholars  are 
also  agreed  that  J  and  E  are  older  than  P. 

7.  Deuteronomy  in  some  form,  not  the  whole  of  the 
Pentateuch,  was  the  Book  of  the  Law  upon  which  the 
reforms  of  Josiah  were  founded.  Whatever  the  date  of 
its  writing,  it  was  then  published  for  the  first  time. 

Points  of  Disagreement.  From  the  preceding  sum- 
mary it  would  seem  that  agreement  has  been  reached  on 
all  essential  points.  The  disagreements  appear  in  matters 
of  detail,  such  as  definite  dates,  regarding  which  decisive 
data  are  lacking: 

I.  The  relative  age  of  D  and  P.  The  mooted  question 
is  whether  P  is  postexilic  and  so  later  than  D,  or,  apart 
from  editorial  additions,  preexilic  and,  consequently, 
earlier  than  D.  A  few  scholars  hold  that  P,  with  the 
exception,  perhaps,  of  H,^^  was  written  before  D,^^  and 
that  H,  though  embodying  earlier  material,  reached  its 
final  form  during  the  exile.     These  scholars,  however, 


Lev.  19. 2 ;  20.  7,  etc. 
'That  is,  the  Law  of  Holiness. 
See  above,  p.  54. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  69 

admit  that  P  received  more  or  less  extensive  additions 
during  the  postexilic  period.  On  the  other  hand,  most 
modern  scholars  consider  P  a  postexilic  production ;  they 
admit,  however,  that  H  was  compiled  during  the  exile, 
and  that  the  laws  of  H  and  P  are  largely  based  on  pre- 
exilic  practice,  ritual,  and  customs,  some  of  which  may 
have  reached  the  compiler  in  written  form.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  difference  between  the  two  views 
is,  after  all,  not  so  very  great.  One  side  says:  "P  is 
preexilic  with  postexilic  additions"  ;  the  other :  "P  is  post- 
exilic, embodying  preexilic  material."  Both  might  agree 
on  this  statement  of  the  case:  P  is  a  combination  of 
preexilic  and  postexilic  materials. 

2.  The  relative  age  and  place  of  composition  of  J  and 
E.  But  here  again  there  seems  to  be  growing  unanimity 
in  favor  of  Judah  as  the  home  of  J,  and  of  the  northern 
kingdom,  the  territory  of  the  Joseph  tribes,  as  the  home 
of  E.  The  Graf-Wellhausen  school  places  J  before  E, 
but  there  are  a  few  eminent  scholars  who  reverse  this 
position.^* 

3.  The  detailed  analysis  of  JE  into  J  and  E.  There 
are  several  reasons  why  uncertainty  should  exist  here: 
( I  )The  similarity  of  subject ;  both  J  and  E  cover  the  early 
history  of  the  Hebrews;  (2)  the  similarity  of  point  of 
view;  both  reflect  the  prophetic  point  of  view;  (3)  the 
nearness  in  date  and  age ;  both  come  from  the  golden  age 
of  Hebrew  prose  writing ;  (4)  the  manner  of  combination ; 
the  interweaving  of  J  and  E  is  much  more  complete  and 
intricate  than  is  the  case  with  the  other  documents. 

4.  The  presence  of  the  Pentateuchal  documents  in 
Judges,   Samuel,  and  Kings.     It  is  quite  generally  ad- 

"  See  above,  p.  57. 


70   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

mitted  that  traces  of  some  of  them  are  found  in  Judges ; 
it  is  also  recognized  that,  if  these  sources  were  not  used 
in  Samuel,  the  compiler  made  use  of  sources  written  in 
the  spirit  of  J  and  E ;  there  is  more  uncertainty  regarding 
Kings. 

5.  The  exact  process  by  which  the  several  documents 
were  combined  to  form  the  present  Pentateuch. 

6.  The  analysis  of  the  several  documents  into  earlier 
and  later  material,  symbolized  by  the  letters  Ji,  J2,  J3, 
Ei,  E2,  E3,  etc.  The  general  tendency  among  more 
recent  writers  is  to  assign  a  considerable  proportion  of 
the  material  to  relatively  early  dates. 

Concerning  these  six  points  on  which  disagreements 
exist  it  may  be  noted :  ( i )  They  do  not  touch  the  central 
question,  Did  Moses  write  the  Pentateuch?  (2)  Uncer- 
tainty on  these  points  cannot  invalidate  the  conclusions 
reached  regarding  other  and  more  important  questions. 
(3)  The  disagreements  are  easily  accounted  for  by  the 
absence  of  decisive  data.  Therefore,  the  charge  that 
the  lack  of  unanimity  is  due  to  the  use  of  faulty  working 
methods  and  principles  is  without  support;  and  the  dis- 
agreements in  so  far  as  they  are  real  cannot  be  used 
legitimately  as  an  argument  against  the  correctness  of 
the  modern  critical  position. 

II.  The  Manner  of  Literary  Composition.  Another 
line  of  argument  against  the  modern  critical  view,  and 
thus,  by  implication,  in  favor  of  the  traditional  position 
is  suggested  in  these  words:  "No  other  book  was  so 
constructed;  no  book  could  be  so  constructed";^^  or  in 
the  assertion  of  A.  J.  F.  Behrends :  "Was  there  ever  such 
a  literary  patch  quilt  ? — It  is  simply  incredible  that  Genesis 


^Anti-Higher  Criticism,  p.  10. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  71 

was  put  together  as  the  critics  claim."  ^®  In  other  words, 
the  claim  is  set  up  that  the  study  of  extra-biblical  litera- 
ture shows  the  modern  critical  views  concerning  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  to  be  impossible. 

It  is  rarely  wise  to  call  a  thing  impossible;  and  it  is 
never  so,  unless  one  is  absolutely  sure  of  his  facts.  Un- 
fortunately, the  facts  in  the  case  do  not  warrant  the 
assertions  quoted.  The  eminent  archaeologist  H.  A. 
Sayce,  often  claimed  as  one  of  the  chief  supporters  of 
the  traditional  views,  has  made  the  statement:  "Modern 
research  has  shown  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  most 
ancient  literature  of  all  nations  was  of  composite  origin, 
more  especially  where  it  was  of  a  historical  or  religious 
character.  Older  documents  were  incorporated  into  it 
with  only  so  much  change  as  to  allow  them  to  be  fitted 
together  into  a  continuous  story,  or  to  reflect  the  point  of 
view,  ethical,  political,  or  religious,  of  the  later  compiler. 
The  most  ancient  books  that  have  come  down  to  us  are, 
with  few  exceptions,  essentially  compilations."  ^'^  He 
illustrates  his  statement  by  referring  to  the  "Book  of  the 
Dead"  of  Egypt  and  the  epic  literature  of  ancient  Baby- 
lonia;^^ and  then  concludes  with  the  words:  "The  com- 
posite character  of  the  Pentateuch,  therefore,  is  only 
what  a  study  of  similar  contemporaneous  literature 
brought  to  light  by  modern  research  would  lead  us  to 
expect."  ^^ 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  go  outside  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  find  illustrations  of  the  literary  method, 
which,  according  to  modern  scholarship,   was  used  in 


'  The  Old  Testament  under  Fire,  pp.  129,  133. 
'  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  3. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  31. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  34. 


72   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  production  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  books  of  Chron- 
icles, for  example,  which  contain  a  "history"  parallel  to 
the  historical  records  from  Genesis  to  Kings,  were  written 
several  centuries  subsequently  to  the  writing  of  the  other 
records.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the  Chronicler 
himself,  he  made  use  of  earlier  documents;  and  a  com- 
parison with  the  earlier  narratives  shows  that,  in  prin- 
ciple at  least,  he  followed  the  same  method  which  the 
compiler  of  the  Pentateuch  is  said  to  have  adopted.  In 
some  cases  he  simply  transferred  the  statements  in  the 
older  writings  to  his  own  work ;  in  others  he  introduced 
modifications  or  made  abbreviations  to  satisfy  his  own 
religious  or  theological  ideas,  while  in  still  other  cases 
he  introduced  wholly  fresh  material.^*^ 

In  a  later  work,  written  by  a  Semite  for  Semitic 
(Syrian)  Christians,  the  same  method  of  compilation  can 
be  studied  more  fully,  because  in  this  case  the  original 
documents,  four  in  number,  have  been  preserved.  The 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian^^  is  a  Life  of  Jesus  composed  by 
piecing  together  passages  from  the  four  canonical  Gos- 
pels. This  compilation  constituted  the  official  gospel  of 
the  Syrian  Church  for  about  two  centuries,  and  but  for 
the  interference  of  some  Syrian  bishops  might  have  dis- 
placed the  separate  Gospels  entirely  from  use  in  that 
church.  The  following  extract  consists  of  twelve  frag- 
ments from  three  different  sources,  only  two  of  which 
contain  a  whole  verse :  "And  the  same  day,  when  even 
was  come,  he  said  unto  them.  Let  us  go  unto  the  other 


'"Compare,  for  example,  2  Sam.  10.  1-5  with  l  Chron.  19.  1-5,  and 
2  Sam.  24.  i-io  with  i  Chron.  21.  1-8.  Unfortunately,  many  of  the 
sources  used  by  the  Chronicler,  if  not  all  of  them,  have  been  lost; 
hence  it  is  impossible  to  study  in  detail  the  method  of  the  Chronicler. 

''  Died  c.  150  A,  D. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  73 

side  of  the  lake.  And  when  they  had  sent  away  the 
multitude  (Jesus)  went  into  a  ship  with  his  disciples; 
and  there  were  also  with  him  other  little  ships.  And 
behold,  there  arose  a  great  tempest  in  the  sea,  and  the 
ships  were  near  being  swamped  by  the  waves ;  and  (Jesus) 
was  in  the  stern  being  asleep  on  a  pillow.  And  his  dis- 
ciples came  to  him  and  awoke  him,  saying,  Master,  save 
us,  we  perish !  Then  he  arose  and  rebuked  the  wind  and 
the  raging  of  the  water,  and  said  unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be 
still !  And  the  wind  ceased  and  there  was  a  great  calm. 
And  he  said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  so  fearful  ?  How  is 
it  that  ye  have  no  faith?  And  they  feared  exceedingly 
(and)  wondered,  saying  one  to  another.  What  manner 
of  man  is  this?  for  he  commanded  the  winds  and  water, 
and  they  obey  him."  This  brief  paragraph  consists  of 
extracts  from  the  following  sources :  Mark  4.  35a,  Luke 
8.  22b,  Mark  4.  36a,  Luke  8.  22a,  Mark  4.  36b,  Matt. 
8.  24a,  Luke  8.  23b,  Mark  4.  38a,  Matt.  8.  25,  Luke  8.  24b, 
Mark  4.  39b-4ia,  Luke  8.  25b.  It  is  seen,  therefore,  that 
"such  a  literary  patch  quilt"  was  not  only  possible,  but 
was  actually  produced  and  put  to  serious  use.^^ 

III.  Unity  of  Theme  and  Plan.  Another  phase  of 
the  same  argument  rests  upon  the  alleged  unity  of  the 
Pentateuch;  which,  it  is  claimed,  militates  against  the 
assumption  of  diversity  of  authorship.  Says  W.  H. 
Green :  "The  unity  of  theme  and  the  unity  of  plan  .  .  . 


^^  Compilations  of  a  similar  character  are  found  in  other  ancient 
and  modern  literatures.  For  Arabic  literature  see  Revue  Biblique, 
1906,  pp.  509-519,  and  the  Essay  on  Historical  Methods  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  edited  by  H.  B.  Swete 
(1909).  For  other  examples,  even  in  early  English  literature,  see 
Carpenter  and  Harford-Battersby,  The  Hexateuch,  vol.  i,  chap,  i, 
and  H.  T.  Fowler,  A  History  of  the  Literature  of  Ancient  Israel, 
pp.  46ff. 


74   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

creates  a  presumption  that  these  books  are,  as  they  have 
been  traditionally  believed  to  be,  the  product  of  a  single 
writer."  ^^ 

Now,  no  one  can  deny  the  essential  unity  of  theme  and 
plan ;  but  does  such  unity  exclude  the  use  of  compilation 
as  a  method  of  literary  composition  ?  The  same  kind  of 
unity  exists  in  Chronicles,  where,  according  to  the  writer's 
own  testimony,  it  is  perfectly  consistent  with  compilation 
from  numerous  sources.  There  is  complete  unity  in  the 
Diatessaron;  and  there  is  a  certain  unity  in  students' 
essays,  though  in  many  cases  they  consist  largely  of 
extracts  from  other  works.  All  that  this  kind  of  unity 
proves  is  that  the  final  product  is  dominated  by  the  ideals 
of  one  man  or  of  one  school ;  and  such  domination  is  not 
questioned  in  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch.  Who  this  man 
may  have  been  or  when  he  may  have  lived  cannot  be 
determined  from  the  unity  of  theme  and  plan. 

To  sum  up  this  part  of  the  discussion:  The  Indirect 
Evidence,  of  which  so  much  is  made  by  some  writers, 
does  not  prove  the  case;  it  leaves  the  problem  of  the 
origin  and  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  an  open  question. 


"  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  29 ;  compare  also. 
The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  passim. 


CHAPTER  V 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

2.    External  Evidence 


CHAPTER  V 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

2.    External  Evidence 

I.    Evidence  Based  upon  New  Testament  Statements. 

This  includes  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and  of  the  New 
Testament  writers.  There  are  those  who  insist  that  the 
words  of  Jesus  place  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch beyond  question.  In  support  reference  is  made  to 
passages  like  these:  John  5.45-47;  7.19;  Matt.  8.4; 
Mark  7.  10;  which,  however,  are  all  irrelevant,  because 
not  one  of  them  claims  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
for  Moses.  In  the  first  "Moses"  seems  to  cover  the 
entire  Old  Testament;  in  the  second,  "Did  not  Moses 
give  you  the  law?"  there  is  no  reference  to  the  writing 
of  anything;  and  in  the  third  and  fourth  certain  laws 
are  ascribed  to  Moses,  without  implying  literary  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  or  even  of  a  part  of  it.  Other 
passages  of  a  similar  character  and  equally  irrelevant  are 
quoted  at  times,  which  it  is  not  necessary  even  to  mention. 
There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  in  which  the  words 
of  Jesus  seem  to  imply  that  Moses  actually  wrote  some 
things  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  Mark  10.  5  these 
words  are  placed  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus :  "For  your 
hardness  of  heart  he  [Moses]  wrote  you  this  command- 
ment" ;  or  Luke  20.  t,7>  "Even  Moses  showed  in  the  place 
concerning  the  Bush."  These  and  similar  passages,  natu- 
rally interpreted,  seem  to  imply  that  Moses  wrote  some 

77 


78   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

passages,  long  or  short,  in  the  Pentateuch.  Do  these 
references  settle  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  first 
five  books  of  the  Old  Testament  for  those  who  claim  to  be 
followers  of  Jesus,  the  Christ?  An  emphatic  affirmative 
answer  is  given  by  W.  H.  Green :  "For  those  who  rever- 
ently accept  him  as  an  infallible  teacher  this  settles  the 
question."^  He  and  other  writers  are  one  in  charging  that 
denial  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
presence  of  passages  like  those  quoted  is  evidence  of  un- 
belief, an  insult  to  the  Christ,  because  a  denial  of  his 
authority.  "If  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,"  says 
one,  "or  any  portion  of  it,  and  the  Highest  Critics — Jesus 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit — declare  he  did,  it  would  be  a 
lie.  It  would  be  none  the  less  a  lie,  even  though  the 
Jews  held  traditionally  that  Moses  was  the  author  of 
these  books.  The  testimony  of  the  Highest  Critics  is 
absolutely  unerringly  and  eternally  true,  and  he  who 
hesitates  to  receive  it  as  against  all  other  testimonies  is 
disloyal  to  the  truth."  ^ 

Clearly  these  statements  are  based  on  the  assumption 
that  Jesus  gave  and  meant  to  give  deliberate  decisions 
on  questions  of  authorship,  which  assumption  cannot  be 
substantiated.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  well  to  note  that  in 
only  about  one  fifth  of  the  New  Testament  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  is  a  personal  name  connected 
with  the  quotation.  Jesus,  himself,  in  quoting  from  the 
Pentateuch  or  other  Old  Testament  books,  frequently 
omits  all  reference  to  the  alleged  author,  which  seems  to 
imply  that,  in  comparison  with  the  truth  taught,  he  con- 
sidered the  question  of  authorship  of  no  special  sig- 
nificance. 


'  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  32. 

"  The  Highest  Critics  vs.  the  Higher  Critics,  pp.  7,  8. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  79 

Moreover,  in  some  cases  at  least,  the  exact  form  of 
quotation  is  doubtful.  Compare,  for  example.  Matt.  15.  4, 
"God  said,"  with  Mark  7.  10,  "Moses  said" ;  and  Luke 
20.  37,  "Moses  showed,  in  the  place  concerning  the  Bush," 
with  Mark  12.  26,  "Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of 
Moses,  in  the  place  concerning  the  Bush,  how  God  spake 
unto  him,"  with  Matt.  22.31,  which,  referring  to  the 
same  statement,  introduces  it  by  "Have  ye  not  read  that 
which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God?"  Which  one  of 
the  evangelists  has  preserved  the  actual  words  of  Jesus? 

But  even  admitting  that  in  these  and  similar  passages 
Jesus  used  a  personal  name,  does  this  imply  a  decision 
respecting  authorship?  No  one  would  raise  objection  in 
connection  with  extra-biblical  literature  to  the  use  of  the 
name  of  a  writer  to  designate  a  book  without  implying 
that  the  man  named  was  the  author  of  the  entire  book  in 
its  present  form.^  There  is  evidence  of  the  same  usage 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  sermon  of  Peter  "Samuel" 
is  used  as  equivalent  to  "book  of  Samuel,"  ^  for  the 
reference  is  to  a  statement  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel, 
which  is  ascribed  not  to  Samuel  but  to  Nathan ;  nor  is  it 
probable  that  the  speaker  used  the  name  to  suggest  the 
authorship  of  the  book  in  which  the  statement  is  found, 
for  the  words  were  not  spoken  until  after  the  death  of 
Samuel ;  hence  the  latter  cannot  be  the  author  of  the  book 
in  which  it  is  preserved.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews^ 
a  psalm  is  referred  to  as  "David,"  ^  which  is  not  even  in 


^  Compare,  for  example,  the  universal  reference  to  "Webster's 
Dictionary." 

*Acts  3.  24;  the  passage  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker  is  2  Sam. 
7.  11-16. 

'Heb.  4.  7. 

•  Psa.  95. 


8o   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  title  ascribed  to  the  shepherd-king  of  Israel.  May  it 
not  be,  therefore,  that  Jesus  and  the  New  Testament 
writers  used  the  name  Moses  as  a  convenient  designation 
of  a  book  without  any  thought  of  authorship?  This 
seems  to  be  the  case  in  2  Cor.  3.  15,  "Whenever  Moses 
is  read,  a  veil  lieth  upon  their  heart."  '^ 

All  these  facts  suggest  that,  while  Jesus  frequently 
refers  to  the  Pentateuch  and  in  some  instances  connects 
the  name  of  Moses  with  a  definite  passage,  he  never  does 
so  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch or  any  portion  of  it.  W.  T.  Davison  describes 
the  situation  correctly  when  he  writes :  "A  study  of  the 
whole  use  of  the  Old  Testament  made  by  Christ  in  his 
teaching  shows  that  the  questions  of  date  and  authorship 
with  which  criticism  is  chiefly  concerned  were  not  before 
the  mind  of  our  Lord  as  he  spoke,  nor  was  it  his  object 
to  pronounce  upon  them."  ^ 

But  even  admitting  that  the  references  of  Jesus  imply 
in  some  cases  a  recognition  of  authorship,  the  question 
still  remains  whether  the  few  passages  quoted  carry  with 
them  the  authorship  of  the  entire  book  from  which  the 
quotations  are  taken.  There  are  even  some  conservative 
scholars  who  answer  this  question  in  the  negative. 
C.  H.  H.  Wright,  after  enumerating  the  passages  which, 
he  thinks,  are  referred  to  by  Jesus  as  coming  from  Moses, 
continues :  "All,  however,  that  can  be  fairly  deduced 
from  such  statements  is,  the  Pentateuch  contains  portions 


^The  origin  of  the  designations  Moses  ^  Law  =  Pentateuch, 
Samuel  =  Book  of  Samuel,  David  =  Book  of  Psalms  must  be  ex- 
plained and  can  be  explained;  but  as  the  use  of  "Samuel"  and 
"David"  in  the  above-mentioned  illustrations  shows,  it  cannot  always 
rest  upon  the  fact  of  authorship,  whatever  the  popular  idea  may 
have  been. 

*  James  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iv,  p.  151. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  8i 

written  by  Moses.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  five  books 
as  a  whole  were  written  by  that  lawgiver."  ^ 

Other  scholars  consider  this  explanation  somewhat 
forced  and  unnatural;  therefore,  they  prefer  a  different 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  Many  hold  that  in 
his  references  to  the  Pentateuch  Jesus  accommodated 
himself  to  the  usage  of  the  Jews,  without  indorsing  their 
views  or  giving  expression  to  his  own,  even  though  he 
knew  that  the  commonly  accepted  opinions  regarding  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  were  erroneous.  Those  who 
advocate  this  view  believe  that  their  attitude  in  no  wise 
dishonors  their  Master  or  discredits  his  spiritual  authority 
and  supremacy.  Indeed,  they  say,  one  cannot  easily  see 
what  other  course  he  could  have  taken.  Jesus  had  come 
to  reveal  the  Father,  to  bring  a  sinful  race  into  harmony 
with  a  holy  God.  The  task  was  great  and  difficult,  and 
there  was  but  little  time  in  which  to  accomplish  it.  If 
he  had  turned  aside  from  his  chief  purpose  to  settle 
scientific  and  literary  questions  which  were  not  under 
discussion  among  the  people,  he  would  have  aroused 
popular  opposition  and  thus  hindered  his  chief  work. 
As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  in  no  case  do  his  refer- 
ences imply  that  he  desired  to  pronounce  authoritative 
critical  judgment,  and  in  no  case  does  the  value  of  the 
quotation  depend  on  the  authorship  of  the  passage  quoted. 
Looking,  therefore,  at  the  question  from  the  pedagogical 
standpoint,  it  would  seem  that  in  view  of  his  important 
mission  in  the  world,  Jesus  was  compelled  to  accommo- 
date himself  to  the  view  and  usage  of  the  people  in  all 
matters  not  essential  to  his  lifework. 

Though  this  view  appeals  as  perfectly  satisfactory  to 


^Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  76. 


82   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

many  devout  Christian  believers,  there  are  others  who 
maintain  that  it  would  not  have  been  legitimate  for 
Jesus  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  usage  of  the  people 
if  he  had  known  that  their  views  were  not  in  accord  with 
the  facts  ;^^  nevertheless,  they  insist  that  his  utterances 
do  not  settle  purely  literary  questions.  They  believe  that 
Jesus  shared  the  views  of  the  people,  that  he  actually 
believed  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch,  and 
that  this  was  due  to  a  lack  of  knowledge  on  his  part. 
And  they  further  insist  that  this  attitude  toward  Jesus 
in  no  wise  affects  the  supreme  and  final  authority  of  the 
Christ  over  the  lives  of  men.  The  entire  life  of  the 
Master,  they  say,  shows  that  he  regarded  his  mission  as 
spiritual ;  he  did  not  come  to  correct  all  errors,  but  merely 
those  touching  religion  and  ethics;  and  even  here  he  did 
not  give  specific  rules.  In  most  cases  he  simply  laid 
down  great  principles  which  in  time  might  be  worked 
out  and  applied  to  the  details  of  human  activity.  He  did 
not  abolish  slavery,  he  made  no  effort  to  correct  errors 
in  science ;  why  should  he  correct  erroneous  views  regard- 
ing critical  and  literary  questions? 

These  were  outside  the  sphere  of  his  immediate  inter- 
ests. His  knowledge  or  ignorance  in  these  secondary 
matters  does  not  necessarily  affect  his  knowledge  or 
authority  in  essentials.  Surely,  the  words  of  Marcus 
Dods  are  not  inapplicable  here :  "Ignorance  of  some  de- 
partments of  truth  does  not  disqualify  a  man  for  knowing 
and  imparting  truth  about  God ;  in  order  to  be  a  medium 
of  revelation  a  man  does  not  need  to  be  in  advance  of 
his  age  in  secular  learning;  intimate  communion  with 


"J.  E.   McFadyen,   Old   Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian 
Church,  p.  209. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  83 

God,  a  spirit  trained  to  discern  spiritual  things,  a  perfect 
understanding  of  and  zeal  for  God's  purpose  are  qualities 
quite  independent  of  a  knowledge  of  the  discoveries  of 
science."  ^^ 

Again,  the  argument  continues,  while  Christ  was  God 
he  was  also  truly  man.  The  union  of  the  divine  with 
the  human,  if  real,  must  have  brought  some  limitations. 
And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  New  Testament  teaches  that 
in  some  respects  at  least  the  divine  powers  of  Christ  were 
limited,  else  he  could  not  have  felt  hunger,  weariness, 
pain,  etc.  As  strength  was  needed  it  was  supplied.  It 
may  have  been  there  potentially  but  not  actually.  May  it 
not  have  been  the  same  with  omniscience?  In  one  case 
at  least  Jesus  admitted  that  his  knowledge  was  limited : 
"But  of  that  day  or  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the 
angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  ^^ 
And,  surely,  that  which,  according  to  his  own  admission, 
was  hidden  from  Jesus  was  of  infinitely  greater  import- 
ance than  the  authorship  of  a  biblical  book.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  B.  P.  Raymond  is  right  when  he 
says:  "To  affirm  that  he  had  knowledge  of  the  critical 
questions  which  agitate  Christian  scholars  to-day  is  to 
deny  that  he  was  made  like  unto  his  brethren.  It  is  to 
compromise  the  reality  of  his  humanity  and  to  start  on 
the  road  to  docetism.  Fairbairn's  conclusions  are  just: 
'The  humanity  of  the  Saviour  must  be  absolutely  real.'  "^^ 

There  are,  then,  three  explanations  of  the  references 
of  Jesus  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  each  one 
of  which  seems  perfectly  fair,  natural  and,  above  all, 
scriptural;  and  each  one  of  which  implies  that  his  utter- 


"  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  4. 

"  Mark  13. 32. 

"  M.  S.  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  194. 


84   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ances  do  not  furnish  an  answer  to  the  question :  Did 
Moses  write  the  Pentateuch?  This  conclusion,  since  it 
is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  New  Testament,  can  in  no 
wise  be  construed  as  an  insult  to  the  Christ;  nor  does  it 
affect  in  the  least  his  authority  in  religious  and  ethical 
matters. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  equally 
true  of  similar  New  Testament  statements  coming  not 
from  Jesus  directly  but  from  the  authors  of  New  Testa- 
ment books.  The  New  Testament  has  one  distinct  pur- 
pose— to  make  man  morally  and  spiritually  perfect.  This 
is  clearly  expressed  in  2  Tim.  3.  15-17,  in  words  referring 
primarily  to  the  Old  Testament  but  applicable  to  all 
scriptures  "inspired  of  God."  It  seems  to  have  been  no 
function  of  the  inspired  writers  to  give  information  on 
purely  scientific  or  literary  questions.  Nothing  in  the 
New  Testament  warrants  the  inference  that  it  seeks  to 
settle  critical  problems  connected  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. "It  nowhere  claims  that  right  for  itself,  and  if  any 
man  makes  such  a  claim  for  it  he  must  be  prepared  to 
justify  his  claim.  He  must  show  that  it  was  part  of  the 
purpose  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  correct 
traditional  views  of  authorship  and  history,  if  these  views 
were  mistaken.  Further,  he  must  show  that  they  had 
access  to  information  which  would  enable  them  to  correct 
those  views;  or,  in  the  absence  of  such  information,  he 
must  show  that  they  were  miraculously  led  to  a  knowledge 
of  these  matters.  Till  these  claims  can  be  substantiated 
the  New  Testament  indorsement  of  a  tradition  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  can  have  no  more 
value  than  the  tradition  itself;  and  that  must  be  inde- 
pendently investigated.  There  need  be  no  reason  for 
alarm  at  such  a  conclusion,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  85 

these  questions  are  integrally  bound  up  with  the  spiritual 
function  of  Scripture."  ^* 

The  general  use  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  New 
Testament  writers  also  implies  that  their  primary  interest 
was  in  the  substance,  not  in  the  literary  form.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  that  they  ever  thought 
about  questions  of  authorship.  They  were  concerned 
with  the  teaching  and  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament, 
not  with  the  letter  or  anything  touching  merely  the  ex- 
ternal form.  All  of  which  goes  to  show  that  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  and  of  the  New  Testament  writers  does 
not  settle  anything  regarding  the  authorship  and  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch.^ ^ 

2.  The  Tradition  of  the  Jewish  People  and  of  the 
Christian  Church.  In  the  preceding  paragraphs  it  has 
been  pointed  out  that  it  was  not  within  the  sphere  of 
Jesus  and  of  the  New  Testament  writers  to  examine  or 
settle  literary  questions;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that 
they  did.  Neither  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  early 
Christian  Church,  or  her  leaders,  ever  took  time  to  insti- 
tute such  investigation.  On  the  testimony  of  Jesus  and 
of  his  disciples  the  Old  Testament  writings  were  taken 
over  from  the  Jews  as  inspired  Sacred  Scriptures  without 
further  questions;  and  with  the  books  themselves  came 
the  Jewish  traditions  concerning  their  authorship.  This 
fact  robs  Christian  tradition  of  all  independent  value; 
and  if  there  is  any  weight  in  tradition  at  all,  it  is  in  the 
traditions  current  among  the  early  Jews. 


"J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian 
Church,  p.  198. 

^*  See  further  J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the 
Christian  Church,  chap,  viii;  J.  P.  Peters,  The  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  Scholarship,  chap.  iv. 


86   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  official  Jewish  tradition  regarding  the  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  has  already  received  brief  considera- 
tion.^*^ It  may  be  well,  however,  in  this  connection,  to 
quote  and  consider  somewhat  more  fully  the  classic 
passage  in  the  Talmud,^'^  which  embodies  the  rabbinical 
idea  of  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament  books.  It  reads : 
"Moses  wrote  his  own  book  and  the  section  about  Balaam 
and  Job;  Joshua  wrote  his  own  book  and  eight  verses  in 
the  Torah;  Samuel  wrote  his  own  book  and  the  books 
of  Judges  and  Ruth.  David  wrote  the  book  of  Psalms  at 
the  direction  of  the  ten  elders :  the  first  man,  Melchizedek, 
Abraham,  Moses,  Heman,  Jeduthun,  Asaph,  and  the 
three  sons  of  Korah;  Jeremiah  wrote  his  own  book  and 
the  book  of  Kings  and  Lamentations.  Hezekiah  and  his 
company  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs  and 
Ecclesiastes ;  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote 
Ezekiel,  the  Twelve,  Daniel  and  the  Roll  of  Esther; 
Ezra  wrote  his  own  book  and  the  genealogies  in  Chron- 
icles down  to  his  own  time.  But  who  completed  them? 
Nehemiah  ben  Hachaliah."  ^^  As  has  been  stated,^^ 
there  is  another  tradition  assigning  to  Moses  even  the 
account  of  his  own  death. 

Concerning  these  traditions  the  following  may  be 
noted : 

1.  They  cannot  be  traced  beyond  B.  C.  i8o  when  the 
book  of  Ecclesiasticus  was  written.  In  other  words, 
they  first  appear  about  looo  years  subsequently  to  the 
time  of  Moses. 

2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  tradition  is  based 


"  See  above,  p.  44- 

"Collected  between  A.  D.  200  and  500. 
"Babylonian  Talmud,  baba  bathra,  14b,  15a. 
"See  above,  p.  45- 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  87 

upon  any  kind  of  scientific  investigation,  or  that  the 
statement  regarding  the  Pentateuch  was  handed  down 
uninterruptedly  from  anywhere  near  the  time  of  Moses. 
The  intervening  centuries  were  full  of  confusion  and 
barbarity. 

3.  A  moment's  thought  will  show  that  the  traditions 
prove  too  much.  They  are  much  nearer  the  time  of  the 
prophets,  yet  no  one  has  taken  seriously  their  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  the  prophetic  books.  Is  it  credible  that 
Samuel  wrote  the  books  of  Samuel  when  practically  all 
the  events  recorded  in  Second  Samuel  and  some  recorded 
in  First  Samuel  took  place  after  Samuel's  death?  Evi- 
dently, the  expression  "wrote"  cannot  be  interpreted  as 
having  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word.  The  tradition 
must  use  the  word  loosely,  either  of  preparing  the  final 
edition,  or  of  having  some  connection  with  a  book,  per- 
haps as  its  hero,  or  as  the  author  of  some  part  or  parts 
of  the  contents. 

4.  There  are  numerous  indications  in  early  Jewish 
literature  that  in  postexilic  times  the  Jews  manifested  a 
tendency  to  ascribe  to  the  great  men  of  the  past  institu- 
tions or  literary  activities  with  which  they  had  little  or 
nothing  to  do.  This  tendency  appears  already  in  Chron- 
icles, as  a  comparison  of  that  book  with  parallel  narra- 
tives in  Samuel  and  Kings  clearly  shows:  David  came 
to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  practically  all  the  Psalms 
and  the  originator  of  an  elaborate  temple  service,  Solomon 
the  author  of  the  Wisdom  literature,  Ezra  the  author  of 
the  completed  canon,  and  Moses  the  giver  of  the  com- 
pleted legal  system,  from  which  it  was  only  a  step  to 
make  him  the  author  of  the  books  that  contained  the  legal 
literature. 

In  view  of  these  facts  is  it  not  precarious  to  lay  much 


88   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

stress  on  Jewish  tradition?  About  all  that  may  safely 
be  inferred  from  it  is  that  Moses  did  much  for  his  people 
as  a  leader,  judge,  and  lawgiver.  It  certainly  does  not 
prove  that  he  wrote  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form. 

3.  Testimony  of  the  Other  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  expression  "Book  of  Moses"  is  found  in  the  Old 
Testament  only  in  2  Chron.  25.4;  35.  12;  Ezra  6.  18; 
Neh.  13.  I ;  but  expressions  implying  that  the  Law  was 
ascribed  to  Moses  are  numerous,  especially  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles.^*^  In  Josh.  i.  7  Joshua  is  commanded  to  do 
according  to  all  the  law  which  Moses  commanded;  and 
in  other  passages  it  is  noted  with  what  fidelity  he  followed 
the  directions  of  Moses.  Judges  3.  4  states  that  some  of 
the  nations  were  left  in  the  land  "to  prove  Israel  by  them, 
to  know  whether  they  would  hearken  unto  the  com- 
mandments of  Jehovah,  which  he  commanded  their 
fathers  by  Moses."  Similar  passages  are  found  in  some 
of  the  prophetic  books :  Mai.  4.  4,  for  example,  contains 
this  exhortation :  "Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my 
servant,  which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all 
Israel,  even  statutes  and  ordinances" ;  but  these  and 
similar  passages,  being  of  the  same  nature  as  those 
already  mentioned,  carry  little  additional  weight. 

Do  these  statements  prove  that  Moses  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch? In  the  first  place,  what  was  said  concerning  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament  writers  may  be  repeated 
here:  There  is  no  evidence  anywhere  to  show  that  mat- 
ters relating  to  literary  questions  fall  within  the  domain 
of  special  divine  revelation.  Two  questions,  therefore, 
need  to  be  considered :  ( i )  Were  the  writers  of  the  Old 


'"i  Kings  2.3;  2  Kings  14.6;   18.6,  12;  23.25;  I  Chron.  15.15; 
22.13;  2  Chron.  8.13;  30.16;  33.8;  34-14;  35.6,  etc. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  89 

Testament  books  in  a  position  to  know  who  was  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch?  (2)  What  is  really  claimed 
in  the  passages  quoted?  The  second  question  may  re- 
ceive first  consideration.  What  does  the  expression  "law 
of  Moses"  mean?  Says  Green:  "It  is  to  be  presumed,  at 
least  until  the  contrary  is  shown,  that  'the  law'  and  *the 
book  of  the  law'  have  the  same  sense  throughout  as  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  also  in  Josephus  and  in  the  pro- 
logue to  the  Book  of  Sirach  or  Ecclesiasticus."  Then 
he  continues :  "The  testimonies  which  have  been  reviewed 
show  that  this  was  from  the  first  attributed  to  Moses. 
At  the  least  it  is  plain  that  the  sacred  historians  of  the 
Old  Testament,  without  exception,  knew  of  a  body  of 
laws  which  were  universally  obligatory  and  were  believed 
to  be  the  laws  of  Moses,  and  which  answer  in  every 
particular  to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch."  ^^ 

Do  the  facts  warrant  the  statement  of  Professor  Green  ? 
Is  the  term  "Torah,"  or  "Law,"  when  used  in  the  Old 
Testament,  identical  in  meaning  with  "Pentateuch"  ? 
That  the  terms  were  used  as  synonyms  in  post-Old  Testa- 
ment times  no  one  denies ;  it  is  equally  certain,  however, 
that  the  word  "Torah"  is  frequently  used  by  the  Old 
Testament  writers  with  a  much  more  restricted  meaning. 
As  has  been  pointed  out  in  an  earlier  chapter,  the  word, 
like  many  other  theological  terms,  has  a  history  and  did 
not  retain  the  same  meaning  throughout  the  successive 
stages  of  that  history.     Hence,  the  exact  meaning  of  the 


"  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  35.  The  last 
sentence  does  not  necessarily  imply  what  is  definitely  claimed  in 
the  preceding  sentence,  that  in  Old  Testament  passages  such  as 
have  been  quoted  "Law"  and  "Pentateuch"  are  synonyms,  or,  what 
Green  wants  to  prove,  that  because  the  Law  is  ascribed  to  Moses, 
therefore  it  follows  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  entire  Pentateuch, 


90   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

word  in  a  given  passage  must  be  determined  in  the  light 
of  its  context;  and  there  cannot  be  the  sHghtest  doubt 
that  in  a  muhitude  of  passages  the  meaning  of  the  author 
would  be  destroyed  by  an  interpretation  of  "Law"  as  a 
synonym  of  "Pentateuch."  In  every  Old  Testament 
passage  the  word  may  be  explained  with  perfect  fairness 
as  referring  to  a  body  of  laws,  of  uncertain  extent,  which 
was  assigned  to  Moses;  in  no  case  is  it  necessary  to 
interpret  it  as  synonymous  with  "Pentateuch."  One  thing 
is  certain,  therefore,  that  "law  of  Moses"  is  not  identical 
with  "Pentateuch  of  Moses."  ^2 

But  does  the  ascription  of  this  body  of  laws  to  Moses 
necessarily  imply  that  he  was  the  author  of  every  law  in 
the  collection  ?  No  doubt  the  phrase  "law  of  Moses"  may 
be  so  interpreted,  provided  there  is  no  reason  for  believing 
otherwise.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  mean  only  that 
the  collection  contains  a  Mosaic  nucleus,  which  may  have 
been  expanded  at  a  later  time  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and 
along  the  lines  laid  down  by  him.  No  one  seriously 
questions  at  present  that  Moses  was  the  originator  of  the 
movement  and  impulse  which  found  literary  expression 
in  the  Pentateuch,  or  that  the  historical,  religious,  and 
ethical  development  reflected  in  the  Pentateuch  progressed 
in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  along  lines  marked  out  by 
him.^^ 


"For  a  discussion  of  the  etymology  and  history  of  the  word 
torah,  see  above,  pp.  43,  44;  its  various  meanings  may  also  be  seen  in 
any  Hebrew  Lexicon.  That  in  some  cases  the  reference  cannot  be 
to  the  Pentateuch  will  appear  again  below,  pp.  Q/ff. 

'^To  quote  from  two  adherents  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  school: 
"The  priests  derived  their  Torah  from  Moses:  they  claimed  only 
to  preserve  and  guard  what  Moses  had  left.  .  .  .  From  the  historical 
tradition  it  is  certain  that  Moses  was  the  founder  of  the  Torah" 
(Wellhausen,  History  of  Israel,  p.  396).    "Though  Moses  was  not  the 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  91 

Even  at  the  present  time  it  is  not  uncommon  to  use 
personal  names  in  referring  to  literary  productions,  with- 
out implying  that  the  persons  bearing  these  names  are 
the  authors  of  these  works.  "French  jurists  and  his- 
torians and  preachers  when  speaking  of  the  Code 
Napoleon,  usually  and  rightly,  mean  thereby  a  system  of 
laws  which,  every  one  of  them  knows  fully,  should  not 
be  exclusively  attributed  to  the  first  emperor  bearing  that 
name."  ^*  No  one  objects  to  calling  one  of  the  great 
English  dictionaries  of  the  day  "Webster's  Dictionary" 
or  simply  "Webster,"  though  everyone  knows  that  the 
latest  edition  contains  little  that  came  from  Webster 
himself. 

Evidently,  then,  the  Old  Testament  references  to  the 
law  or  laws  of  Moses  do  not  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  all  the  laws  covered  by  that  term;  much  less  do  they 
establish  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  larger  work  of 
which  they  happen  to  be  a  part.  That  the  three  or  four 
passages  which  speak  of  "the  book  of  Moses"  may  refer 
to  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  need  not  be  ques- 
tioned, for  it  is  generally  accepted  that  when  these  state- 
ments were  written  the  Pentateuch  existed  in  completed 
form.  The  ascription  of  the  entire  work  to  Moses  may  be 
due,  either  to  an  erroneous  expansion  of  the  postexilic 
tradition  that  all  law  came  from  Moses,  or  to  the  recog- 
nition of  a  Mosaic  nucleus  in  the  book  and  the  conviction 
that  the  entire  work  was  written  in  the  spirit  of  Moses, 
to  record  a  movement  inspired  and  guided  in  its  early 


author  of  the  written  law,  he  was  unquestionably  the  founder  of 
that  oral  teaching,  or  Torah,  which  preceded,  and  became  the  basis 
of,  the  codes  of  the  Pentateuch"  (Montefiore,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
1892,  p.  64). 

'*  F.  E.  Gigot,  Special  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  57. 


92   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

stages  by  him.  But  whatever  the  explanation,  the  refer- 
ences do  not  prove  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  entire 
Pentateuch. 

The  External  Evidence,  like  the  Indirect  Evidence,  is 
inconclusive;  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  still  an 
open  question. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

3.    Direct  Internal  Evidence 


CHAPTER  VI 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

3.    Direct  Internal  Evidence 

The  direct  internal  evidence  consists  of  statements  in 
the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  that  Moses  wrote  something. 
These  passages  are:  (i)  Exod.  17.  14,  "And  Jehovah 
said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book, 
and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua,  that  I  will  utterly 
blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven." 
(2)  Exod.  24.4,  "And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of 
Jehovah."  (3)  Exod.  34.  27,  28,  "Jehovah  said  unto 
Moses,  Write  thou  these  words.  .  .  .  And  he  wrote  upon 
the  tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  command- 
ments." (4)  Num.  33.  I,  2,  "These  are  the  journeys  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  went  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  by  their  hosts  under  the  hand  of  Moses 
and  Aaron.  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according 
to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of  Jehovah." 
(5)  Deut.  31.  9,  24-26,  "And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and 
delivered  it  unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  that  bare 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  and  unto  all  the 
elders  of  Israel.  (9)  .  .  .  And  it  came  to  pass  when 
Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law 
in  a  book,  until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses  com- 
manded the  Levites,  that  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah,  saying.  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by 

95 


96   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  your 
God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  you." 

Concerning  these  passages  let  it  be  noted  :  ( i )  Genesis 
and  Leviticus  contain  no  passages  which  are  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Moses.  (2)  If  Moses  was  the  author  of 
the  entire  Pentateuch,  why  is  there  special  mention  made 
of  these  passages  as  having  been  written  by  him?  li 
some  one  else  wrote  the  larger  work,  the  references  could 
be  explained,  in  some  cases  at  least,  as  due  to  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  compiler  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  he  is 
embodying  Mosaic  material.  (3)  Moses  is  always  spoken 
of  in  the  third  person,  which  would  be  quite  natural  if 
the  statement  had  been  written  by  another.  No  doubt 
Moses  might  have  used  the  third  person  in  speaking  of 
himself ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  did  use  it  or  must 
have  used  it. 

But  turning  now  to  the  five  passages  involved,  do  they 
prove,  or  do  they  make  it  even  probable  that  Moses  wrote 
the  entire  Pentateuch?  Passages  i  and  4  refer  to  his- 
torical narratives;  the  others,  2,  3,  and  5,  to  legal  por- 
tions. The  latter  may  be  considered  first :  What  does  the 
statement  in  Exod.  24.  4,  "And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words 
of  Jehovah"  mean?  A  comparison  with  verses  3  and  7 
suggests  that  "all  the  words  of  Jehovah"  includes  at 
most  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  either  in  its  present  or 
in  an  earlier  form.  At  present  it  extends  from  Exod. 
20.  22  to  23.  33,  while  in  its  original  form  it  was  probably 
even  less  extensive.  Exod.  34.  27,  28  also  seems  to  refer 
to  a  limited  portion.  In  verse  10  Yahweh  is  introduced 
as  saying:  "Behold,  I  make  a  covenant."  In  the  suc- 
ceeding verses  he  sets  forth  what,  in  view  of  this  covenant 
relation,  he  will  do  for  Israel,  and  what  he  expects  Israel 
to  do  for  him.     This  part  of  the  transaction  closes  with 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  97 

verse  26.  Then  follows,  in  verse  27,  the  statement: 
"And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words : 
for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant 
with  thee  and  with  Israel."  Here  "these  words"  can 
refer  only  to  what  immediately  precedes,  certainly  not 
more  than  verses  10-26.  If  "he  wrote,"  in  28b,  refers 
to  Moses  the  definite  statement  is  made  that  Moses  carried 
out  the  divine  command :  "And  he  was  there  with  Jehovah 
forty  days  and  forty  nights ;  he  did  neither  eat  bread,  nor 
drink  water.  And  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of 
the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments."  The  context 
favors  the  interpretation  that  Moses  is  the  writer;  but 
there  are  those  who,  chiefly  on  the  basis  of  Exod.  34.  i 
and  Deut.  10.  24,  believe  that  the  pronoun  refers  to 
Yahweh.  In  either  case  less  than  one  chapter  is  involved. 
Deut.  31.  24-26  is  frequently  interpreted  as  proving 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch.  The 
central  question  is,  Does  the  expression  "this  law"  refer 
to  the  entire  Pentateuch?  If  not,  what  does  it  mean? 
If  it  includes  the  entire  Pentateuch,  it  follows  that  in 
this  passage  the  whole  work  is  ascribed  to  Moses.  In 
support  of  the  claim  that  it  means  the  entire  Pentateuch 
the  following  considerations  are  urged : 

1.  The  exegetical  tradition  of  the  Jews  so  understood 
it;  at  any  rate,  such  is  the  inference  drawn  from  a  com- 
parison of  Neh.  8.  13-18  with  Deut.  31.9,  10.  This, 
however,  is  mere  assumption,  for  there  is  no  indication 
anywhere  that  "the  words  of  the  law"  in  Neh.  8.  13  is 
to  be  identified  with  "this  law"  in  Deut,  31.9. 

2.  The  assertion  is  made  that  Deut  31.9  must  use  the 
expression  "this  law"  with  the  same  meaning  as  Deut. 
1.5;  then  the  claim  is  added  that  in  the  latter  passage  the 
reference  is  to  a  law  already  in  existence,  because  Moses 


98   THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

is  represented  as  about  to  expound  it;  from  which  the 
further  inference  is  drawn  that  the  reference  is  to  the 
laws  contained  in  the  preceding  books.  However,  a 
careful  reading  of  Deut.  i.  5  and  4.  8  shows  that  in 
these  passages  "this  law"  refers  to  the  legislation  Moses 
is  about  to  proclaim,  and  not  to  what  precedes.  Assum- 
ing, then,  that  "this  law"  in  Deut.  31.  9  is  the  same  as  in 
the  other  passages,  it  cannot  be  interpreted  as  including 
more  than  Deuteronomy. 

3.  Deut.  4.  5,  14;  24.  8;  29.  i  recognize  a  prior  legis- 
lation binding  upon  Israel.  How  this  can  prove  that 
"this  law"  in  31.9  includes  the  entire  Pentateuch  or  that 
Moses  wrote  the  entire  work  is  not  easily  seen;  for  it  is 
just  the  modern  view  regarding  the  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch which  insists  that  there  were  laws  and  statutes  in 
Israel  long  before  Deuteronomy  was  written.  Only  a 
series  of  unwarranted  assumptions  can  justify  the  use 
of  the  passages  mentioned  as  an  argument  in  favor  of 
the  traditional  view. 

4.  "This  book  of  the  law"  in  Josh.  i.  8  is  said  to 
refer  to  the  same  Mosaic  work  as  Deut.  31.9,  24-26  and 
to  be  coextensive  with  it.  Now,  the  argument  continues, 
the  contents  of  "the  book  of  the  law"  spoken  of  in  Josh. 
I.  7ff.  as  comprising  "all  the  law  which  Moses  had  com- 
manded" presuppose  and  include  the  other  books  of  the 
Pentateuch — Josh.  i.  I3ff. ;  4.  12 ;  22.  2ff.  are  drawn  from 
Num.  32;  Josh.  5.  2  from  Gen.  17.  10;  Josh.  5.  15  from 
Exod.  3.  5;  etc.;  therefore,  "this  law"  in  Deut.  31.  9, 
24-26  also  includes  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  first  part  of  the  argument — that  "the  law"  or  "this 
book  of  the  law"  in  Josh.  i.  7,  8  is  identical  with  "this 
law"  in  Deut.  31.9,  24-26 — may  or  may  not  be  true,  for 
it  cannot  be  proved  or  disproved;  but  the  second — that 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  99 

this  law  is  coextensive  with  the  Pentateuch — rests  upon 
a  misapprehension.  "Even  the  superficial  reader  can  see 
that  Josh.  I.  1-9  is  in  the  nature  of  an  introduction;  that 
the  actual  narrative  of  Joshua's  exploits  begins  with 
verse  10.  Is  it  not  precarious  to  argue  that,  because 
*'this  book  of  the  law"  or  "all  the  law  which  Moses  my 
servant  commanded  thee,"  in  the  introductory  verses  of 
the  book  may  be  identical  with  "this  law"  in  Deut.  31.9, 
24-26,  therefore  every  reference  to  a  commandment  or 
law  of  Moses  in  any  portion  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  must 
refer  to  the  same  written  work?  And  is  it  not  even  more 
precarious  to  continue :  If  the  laws  mentioned  in  the  other 
portions  of  the  book  are  found  in  different  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  it  must  follow  that  these  books  were  a  part 
of  "this  book  of  the  law"  mentioned  in  the  introduction? 
The  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua  may  have  had  at  his 
disposal  several  independent  collections  of  laws  or  com- 
mandments attributed  to  Moses,  or  he  may  have  used  a 
work  embodying  these  collections  other  than  the  Penta- 
teuch or  consisting  of  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  But 
whatever  source  the  author  of  Joshua  may  have  known, 
no  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  Joshua  passages  can 
determine  from  them  the  extent  of  "this  law"  in  Deut. 
31.9,  24-26.  It  is  seen,  then,  that  the  arguments  com- 
monly depended  upon  fail  to  prove  that  "this  law"  in 
Deut.  31.9,  24-26  includes  the  entire  Pentateuch,  and 
thus,  that  the  passage  credits  the  writing  of  the  Penta- 
teuch to  Moses. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  who  insist  that 
"this  law"  can  be  made  to  embrace,  at  the  most,  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy,  and,  in  all  probability,  not  even  the 
whole  of  this  book.  The  more  important  reasons  for 
this  limitation  are : 


100  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

1.  Deut.  29.  I  undoubtedly  recognizes  the  existence 
of  an  earlier  legislation ;  but  it  does  something  more :  it 
draws  a  clear  distinction  between  the  covenant  made  in 
Moab  and  the  covenant  made  in  Horeb.  The  words  of 
the  covenant  made  in  Moab  are  found  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy;  those  of  the  other  covenant  in  the  pre- 
ceding books  of  the  Pentateuch.  If,  therefore,  in  Deuter- 
onomy the  words  "this  law"  are  used,  is  it  not  most 
natural  to  interpret  them  as  excluding  the  words  of  the 
other  law  or  covenant? 

2.  The  statements  in  Deut.  31  read  very  much  like 
statements  made  not  by  Moses  himself  but  by  a  later 
writer  who,  in  rewriting  the  Deuteronomic  discourses 
of  Moses,  desires  to  give  the  sources  from  which  he 
secured  his  material. 

3.  In  Deut.  4.  8  "this  law"  is  described  as  containing 
"statutes  and  ordinances."  As  already  pointed  out,  the 
relative  clause,  "which  I  set  before  you  this  day,"  implies 
that  the  law  is  not  yet  announced;  on  the  other  hand, 
5.  I  introduces  Moses  as  presenting  "statutes  and  ordi- 
nances" to  the  people.  May  it  not  be  reasonably  inferred 
from  this  that  "this  law,"  both  in  4.  8  and  31.9,  included 
the  statutes  and  ordinances  embodied  in  Deut.  5-30  and 
nothing  more  ?  But  while  some  ordinances  are  found  in 
chapters  5-1 1,  on  the  whole,  this  section  impresses  one  as 
little  more  than  a  review  of  the  earlier  covenant,  an 
account  of  some  of  the  events  connected  with  its  estab- 
lishment, and  a  general  introduction  to  the  legislation 
which  follows.  Moreover,  12.  i  reads  like  a  formal 
introduction  to  the  new  legislation :  "These  are  the 
statutes  and  the  ordinances  which  ye  shall  observe  to  do 
in  the  land  which  Jehovah,  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  hath 
given  thee  to  possess  it,  all  the  days  that  ye  live  upon  the 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  loi 

earth."  For  these  reasons  many  think  that  "this  law"  in 
31.9  refers  only  to  the  legal  section  beginning  with  12.  i. 

4.  In  Deut.  31. 1  off.  appears  the  command  regarding  the 
instruction  of  the  people  in  "this  law."  In  Deut.  27.  2ff. 
other  provision  is  made  for  bringing  it  to  the  attention 
of  the  people :  "And  it  shall  be  on  the  day  when  ye  shall 
pass  over  the  Jordan  unto  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy 
God  giveth  thee,  that  thou  shalt  set  thee  up  great  stones, 
and  plaster  them  with  plaster :  and  thou  shalt  write  upon 
them  all  the  words  of  this  law,  when  thou  art  passed  over; 
that  thou  mayest  go  in  unto  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy 
God  giveth  thee,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  as 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  hath  promised  thee. 
And  it  shall  be,  when  ye  are  passed  over  the  Jordan,  that 
ye  shall  set  up  these  stones,  which  I  command  you  this 
day,  in  Mount  Ebal,  and  thou  shalt  plaster  them  with 
plaster.  And  there  shalt  thou  build  an  altar  unto  Jehovah, 
thy  God,  an  altar  of  stones :  thou  shalt  lift  up  no  iron  tool 
upon  them.  Thou  shalt  build  the  altar  of  Jehovah  thy 
God  of  unhewn  stones ;  and  thou  shalt  offer  burnt-offer- 
ings thereon  unto  Jehovah  thy  God:  and  thou  shalt 
sacrifice  peace-offerings,  and  shalt  eat  there ;  and  thou 
shalt  rejoice  before  Jehovah  thy  God.  And  thou  shalt 
write  upon  the  stones  all  the  words  of  this  law." 

Josh.  8.  30-35  seems  to  narrate  how  the  two  com- 
mands— to  read  the  law  before  the  people  and  to  inscribe 
it  upon  the  stones — were  carried  out :  "Then  Joshua  built 
an  altar  unto  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  in  Mount  Ebal, 
as  Moses  the  servant  of  Jehovah  commanded  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  an  altar  of  unhewn  stones,  upon  which  no  man 
had  lifted  up  any  iron;  and  they  offered  thereon  burnt- 
offerings  unto  Jehovah,   and  sacrificed  peace-offerings, 


102  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

And  he  wrote  there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  which  he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children 
of  Israel.  And  all  Israel,  and  their  elders  and  officers, 
and  their  judges  stood  on  this  side  of  the  ark  and  on  that 
side  before  the  priests,  the  Levites  that  bare  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  as  well  the  sojourner  as  the 
home-born;  half  of  them  in  front  of  Mount  Gerizim,  and 
half  of  them  in  front  of  Mount  Ebal ;  as  Moses  the  ser- 
vant of  Jehovah  had  commanded  at  the  first  that  they 
should  bless  the  people  of  Israel.  And  afterward  he  read 
all  the  words  of  the  law,  the  blessing  and  the  curse, 
according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law. 
There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded  which 
Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  assembly  of  Israel,  and 
the  women,  and  the  little  ones,  and  the  sojourners  that 
were  among  them." 

Is  it  probable  that  the  writing  upon  the  stones  involved 
the  copying  of  the  entire  Pentateuch,  or  even  of  the 
whole  of  Deuteronomy?  Kirkpatrick  may  be  right  in 
saying,  "It  is  plain  that  the  command  to  write  all  the 
words  of  this  law  upon  the  stones  which  were  to  be  set 
up  on  Mount  Ebal  can  only  refer  to  a  nucleus  of  the  law, 
perhaps  no  more  than  the  Ten  Commandments."  ^  But 
whatever  the  contents  of  this  law  may  have  been,  it  is 
quite  safe  to  assert  that  Deut.  31.9  and  24-26  do  not 
prove  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

The  same  assertion  may  be  made  regarding  the  other 
legal  sections  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses.  The 
fact  that  they  are  ascribed  to  Moses  may,  perhaps,  imply 
that  some  of  the  laws  now  in  the  Pentateuch  were  first 
written  down  by  him,  but  it  fails  to  show  the  extent  of 
these  Mosaic  laws,  and  furnishes  not  the  slightest  evi- 

^  The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  43. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  103 

dence  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  came  from  the  hand  of 
the  great  leader  of  Israel. 

There  remain,  then,  the  two  historical  passages,  Exod. 
17.  14  and  Num.  33.  i,  2.  Concerning  the  former,  W.  H. 
Green,  a  staunch  defender  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch,  has  this  to  say:  "The  fact  that  such  an 
injunction  was  given  to  Moses  in  this  particular  instance 
seems  to  imply  that  he  was  the  proper  person  to  place  on 
record  whatever  was  memorable  and  worthy  of  preserva- 
tion in  the  events  of  the  time.  And  it  may  perhaps  he 
involved  in  the  language  used  that  Moses  had  already 
begun,  or  at  least  contemplated,  the  preparation  of  a  con- 
nected narrative  to  which  reference  is  here  made."  ' 
Even  if  everything  that  the  learned  professor  claims  is 
granted,  the  passage  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  At  the  most  one  may  infer 
that  a  Mosaic  record,  long  or  short,  was  used  by  the 
compiler  of  the  more  extensive  work,  and  that  the  latter 
alludes  here  to  one  of  his  sources  of  information.^ 

The  other  passage,  Num.  33,  i,  2,  states  that  Moses 
wrote  down  the  names  of  the  successive  encampments  of 
Israel.  This  passage  also  makes  the  impression  that  the 
author  of  the  narrative  in  its  present  form  was  not  Moses 
but  a  later  writer,  who  claims  that  he  is  embodying  a 
Mosaic  document  in  his  own  work.  But  whatever  the 
exact  force  of  the  words,  the  section  claimed  for  Moses 
does  not  extend  beyond  33.  49.  Surely,  the  writing  of  a 
part  of  one  chapter  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  writing 
of  the  entire  Pentateuch.  It  requires  a  considerable 
stretch  of  the  imagination  to  conclude  as  does  Green : 


'  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  37,  38. 
*It  should  be  noted  that  there  is  no  statement  to  the  effect  that 
Moses  actually  wrote  the  account. 


I04  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

"There  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  author 
of  this  Hst  of  stations  was  the  author  of  the  entire  Penta- 
teuchal  narrative  from  the  departure  out  of  Egypt  to  the 
arrival  at  the  plains  of  Moab."  ^ 

The  argument  from  the  Direct  Internal  Evidence 
clearly  is  no  more  conclusive  than  are  the  arguments 
discussed  in  the  two  preceding  chapters :  it  leaves  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  an  open 
question. 


*  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  38. 


CHAPTER  VII 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

4.    Indirect  Internal  Evidence 


CHAPTER  VII 

ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP 

4.    Indirect  Internal  Evidence 

The  Direct  Internal  Evidence  having  proved  scanty 
and  unsatisfactory,  there  remains  one  other  line  of  argu- 
ment that  demands  consideration,  namely,  the  contents 
of  the  book  which,  even  apart  from  definite  statements, 
are  said  to  point  to  Moses  as  the  author  of  the  entire 
Pentateuch,  or  at  least  to  the  age  of  Moses  as  the  time  of 
its  composition.  This  argument,  based  upon  what  may 
be  called  Indirect  Internal  Evidence,  is  cumulative,  and 
may  be  presented  under  five  heads:  i.  The  Origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  Desert.  II.  The  Influence  of  Egypt 
Reflected  in  the  Pentateuch.  III.  The  Lack  of  Personal 
Acquaintance  with  Palestine.  IV.  The  Pentateuchal 
Legislation  and  Israel's  Nomad  Life.  V.  Linguistic 
Characteristics. 

I.  The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Desert. 
The  claim  is  made  by  the  defenders  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  that  both  the  legislation  and  the 
history  of  the  Pentateuch  bear  the  impress  of  the  desert 
and,  consequently,  point  to  the  desert  as  the  place  of 
their  origin.  By  way  of  illustration  attention  is  called  to 
facts  like  these : 

I.  As  TO  Legislation:  (i)  The  central  institution 
of  worship  in  the  Pentateuch  is  the  tent  or  tabernacle, 

107 


io8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

around  which  the  tribes  are  grouped  in  their  encamp- 
ments.^ The  sanctuary  being  in  the  form  of  a  tent,  it 
must  have  originated  among  a  people  living  in  tents.  In 
a  settled  community,  where  the  people  live  in  houses, 
the  sanctuary  assumes  the  form  of  a  house,  Israel  was 
a  nomadic  people  before  entering  Palestine ;  the  use  of  a 
tent  as  the  sanctuary  must,  therefore,  have  originated 
during  the  period  of  desert  wanderings. 

(2)  The  material  used  in  the  building  of  the  tabernacle^ 
was  such  as  could  be  brought  from  Egypt  or  could  be 
found  in  the  desert.  The  Shittim  wood,  for  example, 
could  be  found  in  sufficient  quantities  only  in  Egypt 
and  in  the  Arabian  desert. 

(3)  The  existence  of  the  tabernacle  implies  the  organ- 
ization of  a  priesthood  to  look  after  its  care  and  transport 
and  to  assume  responsibility  for  the  public  services.  Why 
were  the  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  selected  for  the 
priestly  office?  Why  not  the  descendants  of  Reuben,  the 
firstborn?  The  experiences  of  the  desert  furnish  the 
answer.  The  Levites  were  of  the  tribe  of  Moses;  in  a 
serious  crisis  they  proved  more  loyal  to  Moses  than  any 
of  the  others;  hence  they  were  set  apart  by  him,  at  the 
command  of  Yahweh,  for  a  position  of  special  honor.^ 
And  because  this  was  done  at  the  direction  of  Yahweh, 
Reuben,  who  as  the  firstborn  might  have  claimed  the 
honor,  was  content. 

(4)  In  Egypt  the  priests  were  great  landowners,  whose 
possessions  were  considered  sacred.  In  Israel  they  were 
left  without  property;  they  were  dependent  entirely  on 
the  good  will  and  generosity  of  their  fellows.     Is  it  not 


^  Num.  2.  1-34. 
^  Exod.  25-31. 
'Num.  i6ff. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  109 

remarkable  that  not  a  word  of  complaint  fell  from  their 
lips?  The  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the.  whole 
situation  is  found  in  the  supposition  that  before  the  par- 
tition of  Palestine,  Moses,  at  divine  direction,  reconciled 
the  Levites,  members  of  his  own  tribe,  to  their  lot. 

(5)  If  the  facts  are  as  here  stated,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  regard  the  laws  regarding  the  Levites — their  offices, 
functions,  and  revenues — a  part  of  the  organization 
begun  and  completed  in  the  desert.  Then  Moses,  being 
the  outstanding  leader  of  the  age,  must  be  credited  with 
originating  and  formulating  them.^ 

(6)  The  same  claim  may  be  made  for  the  laws  regard- 
ing different  kinds  of  sacrifice.-'^  They  presuppose  the 
desert  and  the  camp  as  the  place  of  sacrifice,^  and  the 
setting  apart  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  as  priests.'^ 

(7)  The  ceremonial  of  the  great  Day  of  Atonement^ 
points  to  the  desert  as  the  place  and  the  period  before 
the  conquest  as  the  time  of  its  origin.  It  is  the  living 
Aaron  who  is  referred  to  again  and  again,^  the  scapegoat 
is  to  be  let  loose  in  the  wilderness, '^^  the  minister  is  to  set 
out  with  the  goat  from  the  camp^'^  the  bullock  and  goat 
for  the  sin-offering  are  to  be  carried  out  of  the  camp,^- 
and  the  bearers  are  to  return  to  the  camp}^ 

(8)  In  the  same  direction  points  further  the  assumed 


*This  includes  the  laws  regarding  Levitical  revenues  (Lev.  27. 
1-33;  Num.  18.8-32),  and  the  laws  concerning  the  transport  of  the 
tabernacle  and  of  its  furniture  by  the  Levites  (Num.  3,  4),  in  which 
occur  frequent  allusions  to  the  camp  (4.  5)  in  the  desert  (3.  23, 
29,  35,  38). 

'Lev.  1-7.  '"Verses  10,  21,  22. 

'For  example,  4.  12,  21;  6.  11.      "Verse  26. 

''i.S,  7,  8;  2.2,  3,  10,  etc.  "Verse  27. 

*  Lev.  16.  "  Verse  28. 

'Verses  2,  3,  6,  8,  9,  etc. 


no  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

proximity  of  the  tabernacle  to  every  member  of  the 
nation.  Such  proximity  is  presupposed,  for  example,  in 
the  laws  regarding  ceremonial  uncleanness,^^  the  Nazir- 
ites,^^  and  purification  after  childbirth. ^^  Such  proximity 
was  a  reality  only  during  the  desert  life. 

2.  As  TO  History.  The  defenders  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  claim  that  the  narrator 
reveals  such  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  desert  of  the 
Exodus  that  the  conclusion  becomes  inevitable  that  he 
was  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  recorded. 

( I )  Only  a  man  who  actually  passed  through  the  terri- 
tory could  have  mastered  so  perfectly  the  peculiarities  of 
the  land.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  because  the  de- 
scriptions are  only  incidental  to  the  main  story.  More- 
over, the  peculiarities  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  are  so 
striking  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  explain  the  author's 
remarkable  truthfulness  to  nature  as  due  to  coincidence  or 
to  a  vivid  imagination.  One  need  but  read  the  books  of 
modern  travelers  to  realize  how  well  he  has  performed 
his  task.  Thus,  the  encampment  at  Marah,  where  the 
waters  were  bitter,^ '^  evidently  corresponds  to  Hamarah, 
where  a  modern  traveler  found  a  spring  "so  bitter  that 
neither  men  nor  camels  could  drink  of  it."  ^^  The  descrip- 
tions of  Mount  Sinai  itself,  as  given  in  the  book  of 
Exodus,  have  been  found  so  exact  by  modern  travelers 
that  Dean  Stanley,  for  example,  considers  the  coincidences 
"a  strong  internal  argument  of  the  scene  itself  having 
been  described  by  an  eyewitness."  ^^ 

"Lev.  15.2-33. 

"Num.  6. 1-21. 

"  Lev.  12. 

"Exod.  15. 22ff. 

"  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  37, 

'' Ibid.,  p.  42. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  in 

(2)  The  author  reveals  the  same  famiHarity  with  the 
products  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  Whatever  the  nature 
of  the  biblical  manna  may  have  been,^^  manna  is  the 
indigenous  name  in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  for  the  tama- 
risk-gum of  the  Tarfa  tree,  and  may  have  been  so  used 
in  the  days  of  the  Exodus.  The  enormous  flight  of 
quails  mentioned  in  the  same  connection  is  also  in  keep- 
ing with  conditions  in  the  desert,  as  ancient  and  modern 
travelers  have  observed.  The  Shittim  tree,  whose  wood 
was  used  in  the  tabernacle,  is  the  one  tree  that  is  found  in 
any  numbers  in  the  wadies  of  Sinai  and  the  only  solid  tree 
of  sufficient  size  to  furnish  the  boards  as  prescribed. 
Again,  the  game  of  the  desert,  like  the  chamois,  is  in- 
cluded among  the  clean  animals. 

These  and  similar  facts  are  brought  forward  to  show 
that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuchal  narratives  was  thor- 
oughly familiar  with  conditions  in  the  desert  through 
which  Israel  journeyed,  and  that  the  laws  in  the  Penta- 
teuch were  better  adapted  to  the  desert  period  of  Israel's 
history  than  to  any  period  subsequent  to  the  settlement 
in  Palestine. 

II.  The  Influence  of  Egypt  Reflected  in  the  Pentateuch. 
The  whole  Pentateuch,  it  is  claimed,  is  "so  strongly  im- 
pregnated with  Egyptian  memories  that  nothing  can 
account  for  this  peculiarity  but  its  origin  among  the  full- 
ness of  such  reminiscences."  "^ 

I.  The  foundation  of  the  entire  covenant  law  is  the 
fact  that  Yahweh  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt, ^^  an  idea 
which  reappears  constantly  throughout  the  whole  legis- 


'"  Exod.  16. 

''Adapted  from  a  statement  in  Gigot,  Special  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament,  vol.  i,  p.  70. 
''  Exod.  20.  2. 


112  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

lation.^^  The  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  are  closely  associated  with  the  deliverance  from 
Egyptian  bondage.^^  Appeal  is  made  to  the  bitter  ex- 
perience in  Egypt  to  enforce  the  kindly  treatment  of 
strangers.^^  Egyptian  superstition  may  have  influenced 
the  wording  of  the  law  regarding  images  and  likenesses 
of  Yahweh.2^ 

2.  Attention  is  also  called  to  the  similarities  between 
the  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  ceremonial  institutions  and 
practices.  The  ark  is  thought  to  have  its  counterpart  in 
Egypt;  there  are  similarities  in  the  priestly  dress,  espe- 
cially in  the  high  priest's  garment.  The  Urim  and 
Thummim  in  the  breastplate  of  the  high  priest,  the  holy 
convocations,  the  form  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings, 
the  provisions  of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  other  prac- 
tices, all  suggest  Egyptian  customs  and  practices. 

3.  Turning  from  the  laws  and  institutions  to  the  his- 
torical records,  one  is  immediately  impressed  with  the 
accurate  knowledge  of  Egypt  manifested  by  the  author, 
a  knowledge  such  as  could  be  gained  only  by  one  who 
lived  for  a  long  time  in  that  land  of  exclusiveness.  The 
author  of  Gen.  39  to  Exod.  15,  for  example,  reveals  a 
remarkable  familiarity  with  the  land — its  geography, 
climate,  products,  etc.  His  allusions  to  all  phases  of 
Egyptian  life  and  customs — political,  social,  moral  and 
religious — are  in  perfect  accord  with  the  findings  of 
modern  exploration  and  excavation  regarding  ancient 
Egypt.  Even  greater  importance  attaches  to  the  fact  to 
which  attention  has  frequently  been  directed,   that  the 


"Exod.  23.  is;  29.  46;  Lev.  n.  45;  I9-  36;  Num.  15.  41,  etc. 
"Exod.  12.12,  17,  23,  etc. 
"Exod.  22.21;  Lev.  19.34- 
"  Exod.  20. 4. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  113 

knowledge  of  the  writer  is  a  "knowledge  of  Egypt  in  its 
condition  under  the  Ramessides,  that  is,  about  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  his  minute  accuracy  is  inconsistent  with 
any  later  date."  ^^ 

4.  Another  evidence  of  close  relationship  with  Egypt 
is  seen  in  the  fact  that  the  only  foreign  words  in  the 
Pentateuch  are  of  Egyptian  origin.  Moreover,  the 
writer's  thorough  knowledge  of  the  language  of  Egypt 
is  evidenced  by  the  correctness  of  his  orthography  when- 
ever he  uses  Egyptian  words.  This  is  exactly  what  one 
would  expect  of  Moses,  for  he  lived  many  years  in  Egypt 
and  was  carefully  educated  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians.^^ 

III.  Lack  of  Personal  Acquaintance  with  Palestine. 
In  striking  contrast  to  the  accurate  and  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  Egypt  and  the  desert  stands  a  surprising  lack  of 
acquaintance  with  Palestine,  and  evidently,  the  author 
expects  his  readers  to  know  even  less.^^ 

I.  Clearly,  the  author  was  not  in  Canaan  when  he 
wrote,  for  ( i )  many  of  the  laws  look  toward  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan  as  something  still  in  the  future,^"  and 
(2)  he  frequently  uses  the  phrase  "in  the  land  of  Canaan" 
when  writing  of  places  which  must  have  been  well  known 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  land.  He  speaks,  for  example 
of  "Hebron,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  ^^  precisely  as  Jacob 
does  when  he  is  in  Egypt  ;^2  go  also  of  "Shechem,  which 
is  in  the  land  of  Canaan."  ^^     Surely,  were  the  author  in 

"S.  R.  Poole,  in  Contemporary  Review,  1887,  p.  361. 
''Acts  7.22. 

'"Gen.  14.2,  7,  17;  23.2,  etc. 

"Exod.  12.  25-27;   13.  5-14;  23.  20-33;  Lev.   14.  34-57;    18.  3-30; 
Num.  15. 2-41;  18.20,  24,  etc. 
"  Gen.  23.  2,  19. 
"Gen. 49. 30.  "Gen.  zz-  18;  compare  12.  6. 


114  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  land  or  were  he  writing  primarily  for  the  people 
living  there,  he  would  not  need  to  add  the  explanatory 
words. 

2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  entire  work  revealing  the 
kind  of  knowledge  of  the  country  that  would  imply 
personal  acquaintance  or  examination.  All  the  knowl- 
edge shown  is  such  as  Moses  might  have  obtained  from 
the  oral  or  written  traditions  of  his  own  people,  from 
private  or  official  accounts  of  Egyptians,  and  from  the 
forty  days  exploration  of  the  spies.-'*'*  In  confirmation 
of  this  statement  attention  is  called  to  the  striking  differ- 
ences between  the  boundaries  of  Canaan  laid  down  in 
Num.  34.  I- 1 2,  especially  in  giving  the  northern  limit,  and 
the  statements  in  Josh.  13.  4-6;  15.  1-5,  21-32,  said  to 
have  been  written  after  the  conquest. 

IV.  The  Pentateuchal  Legislation  and  Israel's  Nomad 
Life.  In  support  of  the  preceding  arguments  it  is  further 
claimed  that  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  is  the  natural 
outgrowth  of  Israel's  nomad  life  during  the  period  be- 
ginning with  the  night  of  the  Exodus  and  ending  with 
the  arrival  on  the  eastern  banks  of  the  Jordan. 

1.  The  Exodus.  The  starting  point  of  the  desert 
life  is  the  midnight  experience  preceding  the  Exodus. 
This  incident  is  needed  as  the  explanation  of  the  Pass- 
over, of  Yahweh's  appropriation  of  the  firstborn  and  of 
the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread, — three  institutions  which 
became  fundamental  in  the  Hebrew  system.^^ 

2.  The  Second  Passover.  In  the  interval  between 
the  Passover  celebrated  in  Egypt  and  the  first  one  cele- 
brated in  the  desert,  a  law  had  been  passed  removing  from 
the  camp  those  who  were  polluted  by  a  dead  body.-'**^     In 

^  Num.  13. 18-20. 

'"Exod.  12.  13.  '"Num.  5.2. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  115 

consequence,  some  individuals  in  this  condition  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  celebration  of  the  first  Passover  in  the 
desert.^^  The  resulting  conflict  between  two  laws,  one 
requiring  that  all  should  participate  in  the  Passover  cele- 
bration, the  other  excluding  some  from  participation,  was 
met  by  the  institution  of  a  second  Passover,  to  be  cele- 
brated a  month  after  the  regular  feast.^^ 

3.  Laws  of  Property,  In  connection  with  the  general 
provisions  for  the  division  of  the  land  it  was  ordered  that 
the  tribal  divisions  should  be  observed,  and  that  the 
number  of  families  within  the  tribe  should  determine  the 
amount  of  land  allotted  to  each  tribe.^^  No  provision 
was  made  for  cases  In  which  the  head  of  the  family  had 
died,  leaving  no  sons  but  only  daughters.  When  such  a 
case  was  discovered  a  new  law  was  made  for  the  benefit 
of  the  daughters.^*^  But  what  would  happen  if  these 
daughters  should  marry  into  another  tribe?  Would  the 
property  go  with  them,  and  thus  be  alienated  forever 
from  their  own  tribe  ?  This  question  having  been  raised, 
a  law  forbidding  marriage  into  another  tribe  was 
formulated.  ^^ 

4.  Blasphemy.  Blasphemy  is  prohibited  in  Exod. 
22.  28.  However,  when  some  one  was  convicted  of  blas- 
phemy it  was  found  that  no  penalty  for  the  transgressor 
was  provided;  consequently,  he  was  put  in  ward  until 
instruction  might  be  asked  of  Yahweh.^^  The  result 
was  the  fixing  of  stoning  as  penalty  for  blasphemy,^^ 

5.  The  Annual  Feasts.  In  Exod.  23.  I4ff.  the 
observance  of  three  annual  feasts  is  enjoined.     Nothing 

"  Num.  9. 6.  "  Num.  36. 1-9. 

'*  Num.  9. 10-14.  *''  Lev.  24. 10-^2. 

^  Num.  26.  52-56.  *'  Lev.  24. 13-16. 
*°Num.  27.  i-ii. 


ii6  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

is  said  about  the  place  of  observance,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  during  their  camp  life  the  Israelites  were 
always  within  easy  reach  of  the  tabernacle;  hence  there 
was  no  need  of  a  command  that  the  feasts  should  be 
celebrated  there.  In  Deut.  i6.  i6  the  special  provision  is 
added  that  the  people  should  appear  before  Yahweh  "in 
the  place  which  he  shall  choose,"  that  is,  the  central 
sanctuary.  The  addition  may  be  traced  to  the  fear  that, 
after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  people,  being  farther 
removed  from  the  sanctuary,  would  be  disinclined  to 
undertake  the  long  journey. 

6.  The  Slaughter  of  Animals.  In  Lev.  17.  3-5 
the  definite  order  is  given  that  no  animal  is  to  be  slain, 
inside  or  outside  of  the  camp,  without  bringing  it  to  the 
tabernacle  and  ofifering  it  there  as  an  oblation  to  Yahweh. 
This  command  could  easily  be  carried  out  as  long  as  the 
people  were  encamped  around  the  tabernacle,  but  it  would 
be  quite  impractical  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  and 
the  scattering  of  the  people.  Therefore,  in  the  legislation 
intended  for  the  people  in  Palestine,  the  provision  for 
presenting  the  animal  to  be  slaughtered  at  the  tabernacle 
is  removed.^* 

These  and  other  similar  illustrations  are  depended  upon 
as  supporting  the  assertion  that  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  framed  to  meet  conditions  as  they  arose  during 
the  desert  life  of  Israel,  and  that  they  were  modified  or 
expanded  to  meet  new  needs  presenting  themselves  in  the 
course  of  the  wanderings  or  in  anticipation  of  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan. 

V.  Linguistic  Characteristics.  A  generation  or  two 
ago  linguistic  arguments  played  a  very  prominent  role 
in  critical  discussions.    It  was  alleged  that  the  Pentateuch 

"  Deut.  12. 15. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  117 

contains  numerous  archaic  words  and  grammatical  forms, 
which  were  taken  to  point  to  Mosaic,  or  at  least  to  an 
early,  origin — especially  since  many  of  them  are  not 
found  even  in  the  book  of  Joshua.  It  was  pointed  out, 
for  instance,  that  the  form  t<i!i,  the  regular  masculine 
pronoun,  stands  in  the  Pentateuch  one  hundred  and  ninety 
seven  times  for  the  feminine,  and  that  ^5>;,  a  masculine 
form,  is  used  nineteen  times  for  both  genders,  etc.  Atten- 
tion was  further  drawn  to  defective  modes  of  writing, 
unusual  formations  of  stems,  forms  used  subsequently 
only  in  poetry,  etc.  Besides,  many  words  and  phrases 
were  said  to  occur  only  in  the  Pentateuch,  never  in  the 
later  books,  while  many  that  are  found  in  later  books  are 
absent  from  the  Pentateuch.  There  are  also  many  words 
that  are  used  frequently  in  the  Pentateuch  but  only  rarely 
in  the  other  books  and  vice  versa. 

The  author  has  tried  to  present  in  the  preceding  pages 
a  fair  statement  of  the  cumulative  argument  in  favor  of 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  based  upon 
the  Indirect  Internal  Evidence.  If  it  were  possible  to 
confine  consideration  to  the  facts  and  phenomena  empha- 
sized by  the  defenders  of  Mosaic  authorship,  and  if  the 
conclusions  reached  by  them  could  be  accepted  without 
question,  the  argument  might  appear  quite  formidable, 
if  not  overwhelming.  However,  before  the  value  and 
weight  of  the  argument  can  be  properly  estimated,  atten- 
tion should  be  given  to  the  following  considerations :  "^^ 

*"  A  detailed  discussion  of  the  argument  would  involve  the 
presentation  and  consideration  of  facts  and  evidence  that  can  be 
discussed  more  adequately  in  the  succeeding  chapters  and  would, 
therefore,  mean  a  great  deal  of  useless  repetition.  For  this  reason 
the  author  contents  himself  here  with  calling  attention  to  a  few 
important  general  considerations,  reserving  a  full  discussion  of  all 
the  facts  for  the  succeeding  chapters. 


ii8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

1.  The  method  of  the  defenders  of  the  traditional 
view  is  neither  fair  nor  scientific :  only  the  facts  that  can 
be  interpreted  in  favor  of  Mosaic  authorship  are  taken 
into  account;  contradictory  facts  are  passed  over  lightly 
or  are  entirely  ignored.^ "^ 

2.  The  only  argument  that  has  anything  to  do  directly 
with  the  writing  of  the  Pentateuch  is  the  linguistic  argu- 
ment; but  it  has  proved  so  unsatisfactory  that  it  is  now 
rarely  urged  by  those  who  know  Hebrew.  Further  study 
has  disproved  the  high  antiquity  of  the  alleged  archaic 
words  and  forms.  It  is  at  present  quite  generally  admitted 
that  the  linguistic  peculiarities  are  due  to  the  special  care 
with  which  the  Pentateuch  was  copied  in  later  times. 
Scrupulous  regard  for  the  letter  of  the  Law  prevented 
modifications  in  the  direction  of  later  orthography,  such 
as  were  introduced  into  the  books  that  were  considered 
less  sacred  and,  therefore,  were  copied  with  less  care. 

3.  The  student  of  Hebrew  legislation  who  confines 
himself  to  a  few  well-chosen  examples  may  conclude  that 
these  originated  in  the  desert,  and  that  the  desert  experi- 
ences account  for  their  modification  in  certain  directions. 
But  it  becomes  an  entirely  different  matter  when  the  legal 
system  as  a  whole  is  studied.  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  ex- 
tremely doubtful  that  the  desert  wanderings  furnished  to 
the  great  leader  the  opportunity  of  framing  the  complete 
and  intricate  criminal,  civil,  moral,  and  ceremonial  codes 
that  are  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch.  Moreover,  there 
are  numerous  modifications  of  laws  which  cannot  be  ex- 
plained as  the  outgrowth  of  the  exigencies  of  the  desert 
life."^ 


*•  See  below,  Chapters  Vlllff. 
*'  See  below,  pp.  143S. 


MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  119 

4.  All  that  the  facts  presented  by  the  defenders  of  the 
traditional  view  may  prove  is  that  the  Pentateuch  con- 
tains elements  going  back  to  Mosaic  times;  which  is 
entirely  different  from  saying  that  the  entire  Pentateuch, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  a  few  later  interpolations 
or  additions,  was  written  by  Moses.  They  cannot  even 
prove  that  these  Mosaic  elements  were  preserved  in  writ- 
ing: oral  tradition,  faithfully  preserved,  would  satisfy 
all  the  facts  in  the  case.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  point  out 
definitely  any  of  the  Mosaic  elements ;  for  they  may  have 
undergone  alterations,  either  accidentally  in  the  course  of 
oral  transmission,  or  intentionally  at  the  hands  of  later 
editors  or  revisers. 

5.  Putting  the  case  briefly,  the  facts  included  in  the 
cumulative  argument  may  be  said  to  warrant  the  follow- 
ing conclusion,  and  nothing  more :  Whatever  the  time  of 
the  final  composition  or  compilation  of  the  Pentateuch,  it 
contains  elements,  both  historical  and  legal,  that  may 
have  originated  in  the  days  of  Moses.  These  elements 
were  later  modified  and  expanded  in  the  spirit  of  the  first 
great  leader,  and  the  result  of  this  development,  con- 
tinuing throughout  several  centuries,  is  embodied  in  the 
Pentateuch  in  its  present  form. 

6.  This,  the  only  safe  conclusion,  is  far  different  from 
the  claims  of  the  defenders  of  the  Mosaic  authorship. 
True,  if  there  were  no  contradictory  evidence,  another 
step  might  be  taken  and  the  entire  work  might  be  ascribed 
to  Moses;  but  even  then  this  would  be  an  inference  and 
nothing  more.  If,  however,  there  are  facts  which  seem 
to  militate  against  the  acceptance  of  Mosaic  authorship, 
these  too  must  be  carefully  examined  before  the  final 
verdict  is  given.  This  examination  is  undertaken  in  the 
chapters  which  follow. 


I20  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

What,  then,  may  be  said  regarding  the  different  kinds 
of  argument  advanced  to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  ?  Simply  this :  the  case  is  not  proven ; 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  still  an  open  question. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

I.    The  Divine  Names  in  Genesis 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

I.     The  Divine  Names  in  Genesis 

Over  against  the  traditional  view  that  Moses  is  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  practically  in  its  present  form 
stands  the  modern  critical  view,  the  more  important 
claims  of  which  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

I.  The  Pentateuch  is  a  relatively  late  compilation  of 
material  taken  from  written  sources,  all  of  which  reached 
their  final  form  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Moses. 
2.  The  compiler  depended  chiefly  upon  four  documents : 
J — the  Jehovistic  document,  traces  of  which  are  found 
throughout  the  entire  Pentateuch ;  E — the  Elohistic  docu- 
ment, closely  interwoven  with  J  and,  like  it,  found 
throughout  the  Pentateuch ;  D — the  Deuteronomic  Code, 
found  chiefly  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  though  traces 
of  it  may  be  seen  elsewhere ;  P — the  Priestly  Code,  which 
served  as  the  groundwork  of  the  compilation.  3.  D  is 
identical  with  the  Book  of  the  Law  that  served  as  the 
basis  of  Josiah's  reforms  in  B.  C.  621  and  was  in  exist- 
ence separately  at  the  time;  hence  the  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form  cannot  be  older  than  that  date,  though  some 
of  the  material  embodied  in  it  may  be  considerably  older. 
4.  J  and  E  are  both  older  than  D.  5.  The  several 
documents  show  such  striking  differences  that,  on  the 
whole,  it  is  quite  easy  to  separate  them. 

123 


124  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

From  this  summary  it  is  seen  that  a  full  discussion  of 
the  modern  critical  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
involves  the  discussion  of  at  least  four  points:  I.  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  compilation  of  material  from  different 
documents  originating  at  different  times.  2.  The  Penta- 
teuch contains  some  material  that  must  have  been  written 
subsequently  to  the  age  of  Moses.  3.  The  Pentateuch 
had  not  reached  its  final  form  when  the  Book  of  the  Law 
was  found  in  the  days  of  Josiah.^  In  other  words,  the 
Book  of  the  Law  discovered  in  the  days  of  Josiah  was 
not  the  completed  Pentateuch  but  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  some  form.  4.  The  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form  is  the  result  of  gradual  growth  during  several  cen- 
turies following  the  age  of  Moses.^ 

The  first  subject,  then,  that  demands  consideration  is 
the  Composite  Character  of  the  Pentateuch.  Those  who 
hold  that  the  Pentateuch  is  in  the  nature  of  a  compilation 
base  their  opinion  almost  entirely  upon  internal  evidence, 
which  may  be  arranged  so  as  to  form  a  cumulative  argu- 
ment. The  present  chapter  deals  with  the  first  part  of 
this  argument,  the  Peculiar  Use  of  the  Divine  Names 
"Yahzveh"  (Jehovah)  and  "Elohim"  (God)  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis,  not  because  this  argument  is  first  in  import- 
ance, but  because  it  was  the  discovery  of  this  peculiarity 
that  gave  birth  to  the  modern  Document  Theory;  chrono- 
logically, therefore,  it  is  entitled  to  first  place. 

As  has  been  previously  stated,"  Jean  Astruc  was  the 
first  to  call  attention  to  the  peculiar  use  of  the  divine 
names  in  the  Book  of  Genesis.  He  noticed  that  in  large 
sections  in  Genesis  and  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Exodus 


'2  Kings  22.  8flf. 

°  Gigot,  Special  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i,  pp.  85flf. 

'  See  above,  p.  50. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER 


125 


the  divine  name  "Yahweh"  was  systematically  used,  in 
others,  "Elohim,"  and  he  suggested  that  this  peculiarity 
could  best  be  accounted  for  by  assuming  that  the  writer, 
whom  he  thought  to  be  Moses,  used  two  principal  docu- 
ments, which  from  their  respective  use  of  the  divine 
names  might  be  called  Jehovistic  (Yahwistic)  and  Elo- 
histic.  The  facts  discovered  by  Astruc  and  others  who 
continued  this  line  of  investigation  are  as  follows : 


Section 

J3 
>< 

0 
a 

a 

s 
s 

•a 
1 

No  Divine 
Name 

Remarks 

Gen.  1.  1  to  2.  4a.. 

35 
times 

4a 

1 
3 

'3 

■3 

6 
1 

'7 
2 

15 
2 

i 

i 

4 

8 

'8 
4 
20 
11 
20 
5 
5 

26b 

10 

1 

5 

'3° 
1 
3 

'8 
13 

1 
13 

1 
16 

3 

5 
19 

'4 

10 

'4 
5 
2 
2 
1 

i 

16 
16 

'2 

2 
2 

'2 
3 

i 

1 

i 

1 

9 
3 
5 
2 

■4 

2 

'e 

1 

i 

'4 

2.  4b  to  3.  24 . . . 

a  Only  in  the  conversa- 

4  

tion  between  the  serpent 

5        

and  the  woman. 

6. 1-8 

*>  In   the   present   text 

6.  9-22 

Yahweh  and  Elohim  are 

7.  1-9 

combined  into  Yahweh- 

7.  10  to  8.  19 

Elohim,    but    originally 

8.  20-22 .      . 

Yahweh  alone  was  there. 

9  1-17 

<:  Probably  only  twice; 

9.  18  to  11.9... 
12,  13. 

Gen.  11.  10-32 

in  7.  9  Elohim  is  used, 
but  there  is  reason  for 

14 

believing  that  originally 

15,  16 

Yahweh  was  in  the  text. 

17      

Evidently,    there    is    a 

18  19 

combination  of  sources. 

20,  21 

22  1  19 

Gen.  22.  20  to  23.  20 

24 

25   1  18 

25.  19-26 

26.  1  to  27.  40. . 
27  46  to  28  9 

25.  27-34 
27.  41-45 

28.  10-22 

29  31  to  30  ''4 

29.  1-30 

30.25^3 

'    31 

'    32 

33  35 

34 

36,37 
40 
Exod.  2.  1-22 

38  39 

41  50 

Exod.  1,2.  23-25.. 
3   1  to  4   17 

4.  18  to  6.  1 

i 

Is  there  any  significance  in  the  facts  here  presented? 
Can  it  mean  anything  that  in  Gen.    i.    i    to  2.  4a,  the 

*Gigot,  Special  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i,  p.  89. 
Another  table  giving  also  the  Septuagint  variants  may  be  seen  in 
Expositor,  May,  1913.  PP-  409-411. 


126  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

account  of  creation,  Elohim  is  used  thirty-five  times  and 
Yahweh  not  at  all,  while  in  2.  4b-25,  also  dealing  with 
creation,  Yahweh-Elohim  is  used  exclusively?  Or,  that 
in  Gen.  12-16  Yahweh  is  used  twenty-seven  times  and 
Elohim  not  at  all?  Or,  that  in  Gen.  33-50  Yahweh 
occurs  but  once,  El,  or  Elohim,  sixty-seven  times?  Is  it 
strange  that  even  with  only  these  facts  before  them 
scholars  should  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  peculiarity 
in  the  use  of  the  divine  names  points  to  the  use  of  at 
least  two  distinct  documents  in  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  ? 

It  would  seem  almost  inconceivable  that  one  and  the 
same  author  should  restrict  himself  to  the  exclusive  use 
of  one  or  the  other  of  these  divine  names  in  certain  long 
sections,  while  in  others  he  was  apparently  careful  to 
avoid  such  partiality,  using  sometimes  the  one  and  some- 
times the  other.  On  the  other  hand,  the  facts  are  easily 
explained  on  the  theory  that  two  documents  were  used 
and  combined  by  the  same  methods  of  literary  composi- 
tion as  were  used  in  the  production  of  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.^  In  some  cases  the  compiler  may  have 
embodied  in  his  work,  practically  without  any  alterations, 
entire  sections  taken  from  one  or  the  other  of  the  two 
sources,  thus  preserving  the  divine  names  exactly  as  he 
found  them.  In  other  cases  he  may  have  taken  greater 
liberties,  merging  into  one  single  paragraph  passages 
drawn  from  the  two  sources,  and  preserving  the  divine 
name  used  in  each  source.*^  The  combination  Yahweh- 
Elohim  in  Gen.  2.  4b  to  3.  24  probably  originated  with  a 


"  See  above,  p.  ^2. 

•  The  exceptions  to  the  general  usage  in  a  given  passage  may  be 
due  to  carelessness  on  the  part  of  later  copyists,  or,  in  some  cases, 
on  the  part  of  the  compiler. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  127 

later  harmonizer  who,  after  reading  the  two  accounts  of 
creation,  one  making  Elohim,  the  other  Yahweh  the 
Creator,  sought  to  teach  by  the  combination  that  the  two 
are  in  reaHty  one  and  the  same  God. 

The  facts  presented  in  the  above  table  are  so  clear  that 
there  seems  no  escape  from  them;  but  is  it  necessary  to 
adopt  the  Document  Theory  in  order  to  find  a  satisfactory 
explanation  for  them  ?  Naturally,  scholars  bent  on  main- 
taining the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot 
admit  this ;  and  they  have  sought  to  show  that  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  is  determined  by  a  difference  in  the 
meaning,  which  "made  the  one  or  the  other  more  suitable 
in  a  particular  connection."  In  the  words  of  Green : 
"Yahweh  denotes  specifically  what  God  is  in  and  to  Israel ; 
Elohim  what  he  is  to  other  nations  as  well.  That  uni- 
versal agency  which  is  exercised  in  the  world  at  large, 
and  which  is  directed  upon  Israel  and  Gentiles  alike  is  by 
Elohim,  the  God  of  creation  and  of  providence.  That 
special  manifestation  of  himself  which  is  made  to  his  own 
people  is  by  Yahweh,  the  God  of  revelation  and  of  re- 
demption. The  sacred  writer  uses  one  name  or  the  other 
according  as  he  contemplates  God  under  one  or  the  other 
point  of  view."  '^ 

Now,  it  may  readily  be  admitted  that  Elohim  and 
Yahweh  are  not  synonymous :  the  former  is  the  general 
term  for  deity,  the  other  the  proper  name  of  the  God  of 
Israel ;  but  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful  that  the  peculiar 
usage  pointed  out  can  be  explained  in  all  cases  as  due  to 
such  difference  in  meaning.  For  example,  in  Gen.  2  it  is 
Yahweh-Elohim  who  created  the  animals  and  man,  in 
Gen.  I  Elohim  is  credited  with  the  same  creative  act;  in 
Gen.  6.  5  it  is  Yahweh  who  sees  that  the  world  is  corrupt, 

'  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  103. 


128  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

in  verse  12  Elohim  sees  it;  in  Gen.  6.  22  it  is  stated  that 
Noah  did  according  to  all  that  Elohim  commanded  him, 
in  7.  5,  according  to  all  that  Yahweh  commanded  him. 
Does  the  explanation  suggested  by  Green  really  explain 
the  use  of  the  different  divine  names  in  these  and  similar 
passages?  Is  it  possible  to  discover  a  difference  in  the 
point  of  view  from  v^^hich  the  divine  manifestation  is 
described?  On  the  other  hand,  the  peculiarity  receives 
a  natural  and  perfectly  satisfactory  explanation  on  the 
assumption  that  the  statements  were  taken  from  produc- 
tions of  two  different  authors,  one  of  them  using  Elohim, 
the  other  Yahweh. 

But  why  should  there  be  this  difference  in  the  writ- 
ings of  two  authors  covering  the  same  general  period? 
A  comparison  of  some  statements  in  Exodus  with  others 
in  Genesis  furnishes  the  answer.  Exod.  6.  2,  3,  reads: 
"And  Elohim  spake  unto  Moses,  and  said  unto  him,  I 
am  Yahweh;  and  /  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac, 
and  unto  Jacob  as  El  Shaddai,  but  by  [^as  to"]  my  name 
Yahweh  I  was  not  known  [/  did  not  make  myself  known'] 
to  them."  Which  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  words 
addressed  to  Abraham  in  Gen.  17.  i,  "I  am  El  Shaddai; 
walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect,"  and  the  statement 
addressed  to  Jacob  in  Gen.  35.  11,  "I  am  El  Shaddai,  be 
fruitful  and  multiply."  However,  there  is  a  contradiction 
between  the  words  addressed  to  Moses  in  Exod.  6.  2,  3, 
and  those  spoken  to  Abraham  in  Gen.  15.  y,"I  am  Yahweh 
that  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,"  and  to  Jacob 
in  Gen.  28.  13,  "/  am  Yahzveh,  the  God  of  Abraham  thy 
father,  and  the  God  of  Isaac"  (author's  translation). 

It  is,  indeed,  conceivable  that  one  and  the  same  author, 
knowing  both  names,  should  use  them  indiscriminately 
in  writing  of  the  earlier  period;  but  is  it  reasonable  to 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  129 

suppose  that  he  would  thus  use  them  and  then  place  in 
the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the  assertion,  "I  never  did  use  the 
one  during  the  patriarchal  age"?  Evidently,  Gen.  17.  i 
and  35.  II  were  written  by  one  who  held  the  view  ex- 
pressed in  Exod.  6.  2,  3,  that  the  name  "Yahweh"  was 
not  applied  to  the  God  of  Israel  during  the  pre-Mosaic 
age,  while  Gen.  15.  7  and  28.  13  must  be  ascribed  to  an 
author  who  believed  that  the  divine  name  "Yahweh" 
was  in  use  during  the  earlier  period.  This  difference  of 
opinion  regarding  the  use  of  the  divine  name  "Yahweh" 
is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  few  passages  quoted;  on 
the  contrary,  it  may  be  traced  throughout  the  entire 
section  Gen.  i  to  Exod  6.  3. 

The  facts  here  briefly  outlined  point  so  strongly  to  the 
use  of  material  from  different  sources  in  the  composition 
of  the  book  of  Genesis  that  even  some  of  the  defenders 
of  Mosaic  authorship  have  become  convinced  of  the  jus- 
tice of  the  claim ;  but  they  follow  Astruc  in  insisting  that 
this  admission  in  no  wise  interferes  with  the  belief  that 
Moses  was  the  one  who  combined  this  material  so  as  to 
form  the  present  book.  In  support  of  this  contention 
they  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  after  Exod.  6  the 
peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names  practically  ceases.  That 
being  the  case,  it  is  quite  possible  to  assume  that  in  de- 
scribing the  pre-Mosaic  age  Moses  depended  on  sources 
which  he  found  already  in  existence,  and  that  beginning 
with  his  call  to  divine  service  he  told,  in  his  own  words, 
the  story  of  Israel's  experiences  to  the  close  of  his  activity, 
just  before  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan.  The  discussion 
in  the  succeeding  chapters  will  show  that  this  modified 
Document  Theory  cannot  be  considered  satisfactory, 
chiefly  for  two  reasons :  ( i )  there  is  abundant  evidence 
to  prove  that  the  same  documents  were  used  in  the  com- 


ISO    THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

position  of  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  (2) 
all  the  books  contain  elements  that  cannot  be  dated  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Moses. 

Recent  attacks  upon  the  Document  Theory  seem  to 
have  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  the  peculiar  use  of 
the  divine  names  is  the  sole  argument  in  favor  of  the 
theory.  Therefore  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  show, 
by  the  use  of  textual  criticism,  especially  by  a  comparison 
of  the  commonly  accepted  Hebrew  text  with  the  Septua- 
gint  translation,  that  the  Hebrew  textual  tradition  in 
respect  to  the  use  of  the  divine  names  is  untrustworthy, 
and  that,  consequently,  any  conclusions  based  upon  it  are 
without  adequate  foundation.  In  other  words,  the  claim 
is  made  that  the  original  Hebrew  text  did  not  reveal  the 
peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names  upon  which  the  Docu- 
ment Theory  is  based ;  hence  the  entire  Document  Theory 
falls  to  the  ground.^ 

An  exhaustive  discussion  of  these  claims  would  re- 
quire more  space  than  is  available  in  this  Introduction.^ 
Here  it  may  be  sufficient  to  emphasize  once  more  that 
the  Document  Theory  rests  upon  a  much  broader  foun- 
dation, that  the  argument  from  the  peculiar  use  of  the 
divine  names  is  only  one  of  several,  and  that,  though  it 
was  the  first  to  be  used,  it  is  not  necessarily  to  be  regarded 
as  the  strongest. ^^  True,  if  these  recent  claims  could  be 
established,  it  would  affect  in  a  measure  the  detailed 
analysis  of  J  and  E  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  though  in 


^  See  especially  the  articles  and  books  mentioned  on  p.  60,  note  69. 

"  An  admirable  treatment  of  the  principal  questions  involved 
may  be  found  in  a  series  of  articles  by  J.  Skinner  in  the  Expositor, 
1913,  April  to  September,  except  August,  reprinted  in  book  form 
under  the  title.  The  Divine  Names  in  Genesis. 

'"  The  assertion  of  Troelstra  that  the  peculiar  use  of  the  divine 
names  is  the  base  of  biblical  criticism  is  far  from  the  truth. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  131 

many  cases  even  this  analysis  could  be  carried  through 
and  the  separation  of  the  combined  JE  and  P  would  not 
become  any  more  difficult  even  in  Genesis;  in  the  other 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  the  effect  would  be  nil. 

It  may  be  well,  however,  to  inquire,  Has  the  claim  that 
the  Massoretic  text,  that  is,  the  commonly  accepted 
Hebrew  text,  is  unreliable,  been  established?  What 
are  the  facts  in  the  case?  A  divine  name  is  found  in 
Genesis  about  three  hundred  and  forty  times;  in  the 
Massoretic  text  Yahweh  occurs  one  hundred  and  forty- 
three  times,  Elohim  one  hundred  and  seventy-seven  times, 
and  the  combination  Yahweh-Elohim  twenty  times.  ^^ 
Now,  an  examination  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  reveals  the 
fact  that  they  are  not  in  absolute  agreement  ;^^  but  when 
the  discrepancies  are  properly  evaluated,  that  is,  when  the 
investigation  is  confined  to  such  MSS.  as  have  a  reason- 
able claim  for  consideration,  it  is  found  that  "there 
remain  but  sixteen  confusions  of  J,  E  and  JE;^^  that  of 
these  eleven  are  supported  by  only  one  MS.,  and  only 
one  by  so  many  as  three."  In  the  light  of  these  facts  no 
one  can  consider  the  testimony  of  the  Hebrew  MSS. 
sufficient  to  discredit  the  general  accuracy  of  the  Masso- 
retic tradition. 

A  comparison  of  the  Hebrew  text  with  the  recension 
preserved  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  leads  to  the  same 
result.  They  are  not  in  entire  agreement — the  Samaritan 
text  reads  Elohim  for  Yahweh  in  three  passages,  Yahweh 
for  Elohim  in  five  places,  and  adds  Elohim  in  one ;  but  the 
agreement  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  especially  when 
contrasted  with  their  frequent  variations  in  other  matters, 


"J.  Skinner,  Genesis,  p.  xxxv. 

'^A  table  of  variants  is  given  in  Expositor,  July,  1913,  pp.  33,  34. 

"Yahweh,  Elohim,  and  Yahweh-Elohim. 


132  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

is  strong  evidence  in  support  of  the  substantial  accuracy 
of  the  Massoretic  text. 

The  differences  between  the  Hebrew  text  and  the 
Septuagint  are  much  more  numerous.  In  a  considerable 
number  of  cases  the  Septuagint  translation  has  Seog 
where  the  Hebrew  has  Yahweh  and  nvpiog  where  the 
Hebrew  reads  Elohim,  though  the  normal  Greek  equiva- 
lents are  Kvpiog  for  Yahweh  and  ■^eog  for  Elohim. 
Skinner  states  the  result  of  a  comparison  of  the  Masso- 
retic text  with  the  Cambridge  edition  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  is  the  best  available  standard  text  of  the  Septua- 
gint, in  these  words :  "Making  allowance  for  some  doubt- 
ful cases,  I  find  that  there  are  about  sixty  passages  where 
the  Cambridge  edition  reads  a  different  name  from  the 
Massoretic  text.  The  number  of  relevant  occurrences  of 
one  or  the  other  of  the  divine  names  in  the  Massoretic 
text  of  Genesis  is  about  320  (in  the  Septuagint  nearly 
330)  ;  hence  the  cases  in  which  the  standard  Septuagint 
throws  any  doubt  on  the  accuracy  of  the  Massoretic  text 
number  three  sixteenths  of  the  w^hole.  Roughly  speaking, 
we  may  take  it  that  that  fraction  expresses  the  extent  of 
the  'margin  of  uncertainty'  with  which  criticism  has  to 
reckon  in  the  divine  names  of  Genesis."  ^* 

Even  if  in  all  these  cases  the  Septuagint  reading  should 
be  considered  original,  the  reliability  of  the  Massoretic 
text  would  not  be  overthrown.  Surely,  the  agreement 
in  the  remaining  thirteen  sixteenths  cannot  be  overlooked. 
True,  Dahse,  Wiener,  and  others  extend  the  area  of  un- 
certainty, but  they  do  this  by  an  altogether  unscientific 
use  of  the  critical  apparatus  available  for  the  study  of 
the  Septuagint  text.  What  the  investigations  of  these 
scholars  show  is  the  uncertainty  of  the  Septuagint  text; 

^*  Expositor,  September,  1913,  p.  272. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  133 

and  much  critical  work  may  have  to  be  done  before  the 
original  form  of  the  Septuagint  text  is  determined.  Mean- 
while it  will  be  perfectly  safe  to  accept  the  Cambridge 
edition  as  giving,  on  the  whole,  the  most  satisfactory 
text;  at  any  rate,  the  critical  material  brought  forward 
in  the  course  of  recent  textual  discussions  tends  to  in- 
crease rather  than  diminish  confidence  in  that  text. 
Therefore  the  statement  of  Skinner  may  be  regarded  as 
giving  the  relevant  facts  as  nearly  as  they  can  be  deter- 
mined at  present. 

It  is  by  no  means  certain,  however,  that  in  all  the  sixty 
cases  mentioned  by  Skinner  the  Septuagint  reading  is 
preferable  to  the  Massoretic  text.  The  number  of  in- 
stances in  which  the  Septuagint  has  preserved  the  original 
reading  can  be  determined  only  by  a  careful  examination 
of  each  individual  case;  but  in  a  majority  of  cases  the 
superiority  undoubtedly  lies  on  the  side  of  the  Massoretic 
text — which  means  that  the  area  of  uncertainty  is  in 
reality  much  more  restricted  than  would  appear  on  first 
sight.  In  other  words,  taking  into  consideration  all  the 
facts  known  at  present,  there  is  still  good  reason  for 
believing  that  the  Massoretic  tradition  has  preserved  the 
original  text  of  the  Pentateuch,  including  the  divine 
names,  with  far  greater  accuracy  than  the  Septuagint 
translation.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  scholars  have 
been  justified  in  attaching  more  value  to  the  Massoretic 
text  than  to  the  Septuagint  translation,^^ 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  confidently  affirmed  that,  what- 
ever the  future  may  bring  forth,  the  Document  Theory 
as  outlined  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  furnishes  a 
more  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  peculiar  use  of  the 
divine  names  than  any  of  the  other  theories  advanced 

^'  See  note  at  close  of  this  chapter. 


134  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

thus  far.  This  appHes  to  the  theories  of  Klostermann, 
Orr,  and  Eerdmans,  to  which  reference  has  been  made/^ 
as  also  to  the  view  of  Redpath,  who  assumes  the  existence 
of  a  double  or  triple  recension  of  the  Pentateuch,  each 
contributing  something  to  the  present  text  when  the 
others  were  damaged  or  illegible.  The  Pericope  Theory 
of  Dahse,  that  is,  the  attempt  to  connect  the  peculiar  use 
of  the  divine  names  with  pericopes — Sedar  divisions — 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue  lectionaries  is  equally  unsatis- 
factory. Though  developed  with  much  ingenuity,  it  finds 
so  little  support  in  facts  and  is  so  dependent  upon  the 
results  of  an  unjustifiable  textual  criticism  that  it  can 
hardly  be  considered  an  important  contribution  to  the 
solution  of  a  complicated  problem. 

If  the  argument  from  the  peculiar  use  of  the  divine 
names  is  valid,  it  proves  that  in  the  book  of  Genesis  the 
compiler  used  at  least  two  documents.  This  was  the 
Document  Theory  in  its  earlier  form.  But  later  investi- 
gations have  shown  that  the  Pentateuch  contains  also 
extensive  extracts  from  a  third  document,^^  which,  in  the 
use  of  the  divine  names,  agrees  with  the  one  whose  point 
of  view  is  reflected  in  Exod.  6.  2,  3.  In  other  words,  this 
third  document  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  Yahweh 
was  not  used  during  the  pre-Mosaic  age  as  the  name  of 
the  God  of  Israel.  Its  view  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
name  "Yahweh"  finds  expression  in  Exod.  3.  13-15: 
"And  Moses  said  unto  God,  Behold,  when  I  come  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  shall  say  unto  them,  The  God 
of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me  unto  you;  and  they  shall 
say  to  me.  What  is  his  name?     What  shall  I  say  unto 

"See  above,  pp.  58,  59. 

"  The  view  was  first  expressed  by  Ilgen  and  set  forth  in  greater 
detail  by  Hupfeld;  see  above,  pp.  51,  54- 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  i35 

them  ?  And  God  said  unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am  :  and 
he  said,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you.  And  God  said  moreover 
unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  Jehovah,  the  God  of  your  fathers,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  hath 
sent  me  unto  you:  this  is  my  name  forever,  and  this  is 
my  memorial  unto  all  generations."  The  significance  of 
these  verses  is  well  expressed  in  the  words  of  G.  B.  Gray : 
"Exod.  3.  13-16  shows  us  the  name  [Yahweh],  so  to 
speak,  in  the  making."  ^^  The  linguistic,  theological,  and 
other  characteristics,  which  aid  in  differentiating  the  first 
two  documents  discovered  are  of  equal  value  in  tracing 
this  third  document  throughout  the  entire  Pentateuch. 
The  fourth  document,  D,  is  found  mainly  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  Note 

The  Massoretic  Text  and  the  Septuagint.  Professor 
John  Skinner  has  given  such  an  admirable  summary  of 
the  reasons  why  in  doubtful  cases  the  Massoretic  text 
should  be  preferred  over  a  Septuagint  variant  that  it  may 
be  of  value  to  the  reader  to  have  Skinner's  statement 
in  full  :i» 

"(a)  The  Massoretic  text  is  the  result  of  successive 
transcriptions  in  one  and  the  same  language ;  the  Septua- 
gint is  a  translation  from  one  language  into  another.  It 
is  not  denied  that  a  version  may  represent  a  purer  text 
than  a  recension  in  the  original  language;  but  in  the 
absence  of  proof  that  this  is  the  case,  the  presumption  is 
all  in  favor  of  the  original,  because  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  uncertainty  which  inevitably  attends  the  mental 
process  of  translation;  especially  when,  as  is  abundantly 

"  A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  29. 
^*  Expositor,  September,  1913,  pp.  272^, 


136  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

clear  in  the  case  of  the  Septuagint,  word-for-word  trans- 
lation was  not  aimed  at.  (b)  The  Massoretic  text  is  the 
lineal  descendant  of  the  official  Palestinian  recension  of 
the  Old  Testament;  the  Septuagint  represents  at  best  an 
Alexandrian  recension  whose  text  was  certainly  not  trans- 
mitted with  the  same  scrupulous  fidelity  as  that  of  Pales- 
tine. For  (c),  as  regards  the  divine  names,  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  shows  that  the  Palestinian  text  has  under- 
gone practically  no  change  from  a  time  prior  to  (or  at 
all  events  not  much  later  than)  the  separation  of  the 
Palestinian  and  Egyptian  recensions.  The  Septuagint 
text,  on  the  contrary,  has  been  in  a  state  of  perpetual 
flux  as  far  back  as  its  history  can  be  traced.  It  makes  no 
difference  whether  this  be  due  to  accident  or  to  deliberate 
revision :  On  either  view  the  fact  remains  that  the  names 
of  God  have  been  handled  with  a  freedom  which  was  not 
allowed  to  Jewish  scribes,  (d)  While  the  Septuagint 
contains  particular  readings  which  are  shown  by  internal 
evidence  to  be  superior  to  the  Hebrew,  yet  an  examina- 
tion of  its  general  text  proves  that,  on  the  whole,  it  is 
inferior  to  the  Massoretic  Hebrew.  .  .  .  The  Massoretic 
text  is  often  emended  from  the  Septuagint,  but  practically 
never  except  for  some  superiority,  real  or  supposed, 
attaching  to  the  reading  presupposed  by  the  Septuagint 
in  particular  cases,  (e)  The  liability  to  error  is  far 
greater  in  Greek  than  in  Hebrew.  In  the  original  text 
we  have  the  distinction,  not  easily  overlooked,  between 
a  proper  name  mrr'  and  a  generic  name  D-rfb^;  in  Greek 
we  have  only  the  difference  of  two  appellatives,  Kvpiog  and 
^eof  (often  contracted  in  MSS.  to  Kg  and  ^g),  a  differ- 
ence without  much  significance  to  a  Greek-speaking 
writer,  and  therefore  apt  to  be  effaced  through  the  natural 
predilection  for  ^eog," 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

2.    Repetitions  and  Discrepancies 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

2.     Repetitions  and  Discrepancies 

In  support  of  the  claim  that  the  Pentateuch  is  the 
result  of  compilation,  attention  may  further  be  called  to 
the  presence  of  alleged  repetitions  and  discrepancies  both 
in  the  historical  and  in  the  legal  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. These,  it  is  pointed  out,  would  not  appear  in  a 
work  coming  directly  and  in  all  its  parts  from  the  hand 
and  brain  of  one  and  the  same  author. 

I.  Repetitions  and  Discrepancies  in  Narrative  Portions. 
In  the  narrative  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  repetitions 
and  discrepancies  occur  sometimes  in  narratives  appearing 
side  by  side,  sometimes  in  paragraphs  which,  on  first 
sight,  appear  to  be  continuous  accounts  of  a  single  event, 
and  sometimes  in  narratives  found  in  different  parts  of 
the  Pentateuch.  From  the  great  number  and  variety  of 
cases  a  few  typical  illustrations  may  be  selected: 

The  Account  of  Creation.  Gen.  i.  i  to  2.  4a  and  2. 
4b-23  give  side  by  side  what  seem  to  be  two  accounts  of 
creation.  If  it  is  said  that  only  the  first  paragraph  is  a 
complete  story  of  creation  and  that  the  second  repeats  a 
few  incidents  of  creation  by  way  of  introduction  to 
chapter  3,  it  still  remains  a  fact  that  certain  acts  of 
creation  are  mentioned  in  both  narratives.  In  so  far 
as  this  is  the  case,  there  are  repetitions,  for  which  the 

139 


I40  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

above  interpretation  may  or  may  not  furnish  an  adequate 
explanation.  Are  there  also  differences  and  discrepancies 
that  make  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  believe  in  unity  of 
authorship?  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  use  of  the  divine 
names  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter :  the  first  narra- 
tive always  uses  Elohim,  the  other,  with  the  same  con- 
sistency, Yahweh-Elohim.  Moreover,  differences  in  theo- 
logical conception  may  be  noted:  it  does  not  require 
profound  study  to  discover  that  the  conception  of  Deity 
in  chapter  i  is  more  elevated  and  spiritual  than  that 
reflected  in  chapter  2.  But  the  consideration  of  these 
theological  differences  and  of  the  differences  in  vocabulary 
and  style  must  be  postponed  for  the  present.^  In  this 
connection  only  a  few  general  features  can  be  taken  up. 
For  instance,  the  arrangement  of  the  acts  of  creation 
according  to  the  days  of  the  week  is  not  adopted  in  the 
second  account.  The  lack  of  arrangement,  it  is  true,  has 
been  explained  by  saying  that  since  the  second  narrative 
is  not  intended  to  give  a  complete  account  of  creation, 
a  repetition  of  the  scheme  was  not  necessary;  this  ex- 
planation, however,  cannot  remove  the  striking  differences 
in  the  order  of  the  acts  of  creation  in  so  far  as  they  are 
mentioned  in  both  narratives.  In  the  first  account  the 
order  is:  Light,  the  firmament,  separation  of  land  and 
water,  vegetation,  the  heavenly  bodies,  fish  and  birds, 
land  animals  and,  last  of  all,  man,  who  is  created  male 
and  female.  In  chapter  2  the  order  is :  Man,  vegetation, 
animals,  woman.  Is  it  probable  that  one  and  the  same 
author  composed  side  by  side  two  narratives  that  show 
such  marked  differences  in  the  order  of  the  acts  of  crea- 
tion ?  Add  to  this  the  differences  in  the  use  of  the  divine 
names,  in  theological  conception,  and  in  style  and  vocabu- 
^  See  Chapter  x. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  141 

lary,  and  the  conclusion  becomes  almost  inevitable  that  the 
two  accounts  must  be  traced  to  two  distinct  authors.- 
The  explanation  of  these  phenomena  offered  by  Green  is 
not  only  vague  but  skillfully  evades  the  real  difficulties : 
"Where  the  events  referred  to  are  the  same  they  are 
mentioned  under  a  different  aspect  or  adduced  for  a 
different  purpose,  which  accounts  for  the  repetition. 
Thus  the  renewed  mention  in  Gen.  2  of  the  formation 
of  man  and  the  lower  animals,  which  had  already  been 
spoken  of  in  chapter  i,  is  no  proof  that  they  are  by 
separate  writers;  for  each  chapter  has  a  design  of  its 
own,  which  is  steadfastly  kept  in  view,  the  second  being 
not  parallel  to,  but  the  sequel  of,  the  first."  ^ 

The  Story  of  the  Flood.  Gen.  6-9  contains  what  to 
the  superficial  reader  appears  to  be  a  single,  continuous 
story  of  the  Flood ;  but  closer  study  reveals  the  presence 
of  repetitions  and  even  discrepancies  which  seem  to  imply 
that  the  narrative  in  its  present  form  is  the  result  of 
compilation.*  There  are,  for  example,  two  accounts  of 
man's  corruption  and  God's  consequent  displeasure,^  repe- 
titions in  the  statements  concerning  the  entering  into  the 
ark,^  the  rising  of  the  Flood,^  the  perishing  of  all  living 
creatures,^  and  the  drying  of  the  earth.^  Some  passages 
speak  of  one  pair  of  every  kind  of  animals  being  taken 

^  It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  several  differences — use  of 
divine  names,  theological  conception,  vocabulary  and  style — always 
go  together. 

^Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  no. 

*  See  for  a  more  detailed  discussion  J.  E.  McFadyen,  Old  Testa- 
ment Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church,  pp.  143-152.  Bennett  and 
Adeney,  Biblical  Introduction,  pp.  27ff. 

°6.  5-8  and  9-13. 

'7.  7  and   13. 

'7.  6,  10-12,  and  17-20,  24. 

*7.  21,  22  and  23. 

*8.  6-12  and  13,  14. 


142  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

into  the  ark;^"  others  distinguish  between  clean  and  un- 
clean animals,  and  state  that  of  the  former  seven  pairs  of 
each  were  to  be  preserved. ^^  According  to  some  verses, 
the  Flood  continued  for  forty  days,^^  according  to  others, 
one  hundred  and  fifty.^^  The  defenders  of  the  unity  of 
the  narrative  do  scant  justice  to  facts  like  these.  Surely, 
they  are  not  explained  in  this  statement  of  Green  :  "Noah's 
entry  into  the  ark  is  twice  recorded,  without,  however, 
any  implication  that  two  documents  have  been  drawn 
upon.  After  the  general  statement  (7.  7-9)  that  he  went 
in  with  his  family  and  various  species  of  living  things,  the 
writer  wishes  to  emphasize  more  exactly  that  he  went  in 
on  the  very  same  day  that  the  Flood  began  (verses  13-16) 
and  so  restates  it  with  that  view."  ^* 

Duplicate  Narratives  in  Different  Parts  of  the 
Pentateuch.  In  the  first  illustration  the  two  parallel 
narratives  appeared  side  by  side,  in  the  second  they  were 
closely  interwoven  so  as  to  form  one  continuous  story; 
now  attention  may  be  directed  to  a  few  parallel  accounts 
of  the  same  events  found  in  different  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch.  Under  this  head  may  be  mentioned: 
Duplicate  accounts  of  the  origin  of  names  like  Beer- 
sheba,!^  Bethel,^*'  Israel.^'^  There  are  two  accounts  of 
the  promise  of  a  son  to  Abraham.^ '^  The  father-in-law 
of  Moses  is  called  in  one  place  Reuel,^^  and  in  another 

'°6.  19,  20. 
"  7. 2, 3. 
"  7. 12, 17. 

"7.24;  8.3. 

^*The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  iii. 

"Gen.  21.31  and  26.32,  33. 

"28.  18,  19  and  35-  i5- 

"32.  28  and  35.  10. 

'*  17.  16-19  and  18.  9-15. 

'"  Exod.  2.  18. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  143 

Jethro.^^  Exod.  16  contains  an  account  of  the  sending 
of  the  manna  and  of  the  quails;  Num.  11  relates  the 
sending  of  the  quails  at  a  later  period  of  the  desert 
wanderings,  and  the  references  to  the  manna^^  read  as 
if  they  came  from  an  author  who  was  mentioning  them 
for  the  first  time. 

2.  Repetitions  and  Discrepancies  in  Legal  Portions. 
Here  again  a  few  typical  illustrations  must  suffice : 

The  Place  of  Sacrifice.  It  is  quite  generally  ad- 
mitted, even  by  those  who  defend  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  entire  legal  system, ^^  that  the  Pentateuch  embodies 
at  least  three  clearly  defined  codes  of  law — the  Book  of 
the  Covenant,-^  the  Priestly  Code,^^  and  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code.^^  In  the  first  of  these  the  following  regu- 
lations regarding  the  place  of  sacrifice  are  laid  down: 
"An  altar  of  earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me,  and  shalt 
sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt-offerings,  and  thy  peace-offer- 
ings, thy  sheep,  and  thine  oxen :  in  every  place  where  I 
record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  I  will  bless 
thee.  And  if  thou  make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt 
not  build  it  of  hewn  stone;  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool 
upon  it,  thou  hast  polluted  it."  ^^  Two  points  are  empha- 
sized in  this  passage  :  ( i )  that  Yahweh  may  be  worshiped 
in  different  localities — in  every  place  where  he  may 
record  his  name;  and  (2)  that  the  altar  must  be  built  of 
earth  or  unhewn  stone. 


~  Exod.  3.  I. 
"  Verses  6-9. 

^^For  example,  Green,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp. 
36,  27- 

"See  below,  pp.  281  ff. 
"  See  below,  pp.  3o8flf. 
''°  See  below,  pp.  i8iff. 
**  Exod.  20.  24,  25. 


144  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  Deuteronomic  Code  prohibits  repeatedly  and  em- 
phatically the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  local  sanctuaries, 
and  insists  with  the  same  emphasis  that  his  worship 
should  be  centered  in  one  place :  "Ye  shall  surely  destroy 
all  the  places  wherein  the  nations  that  ye  shall  dispossess 
served  their  gods,  upon  the  high  mountains,  and  upon  the 
hills,  and  under  every  green  tree :  and  ye  shall  break  down 
their  altars,  and  dash  in  pieces  their  pillars,  and  burn 
their  Asherim  with  fire;  and  ye  shall  hew  down  the 
graven  images  of  their  gods ;  and  ye  shall  destroy  their 
names  out  of  that  place.  Ye  shall  not  do  so  unto  Jehovah 
your  God.  But  unto  the  place  which  Jehovah  your  God 
shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes,  to  put  his  name  there, 
even  unto  his  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  thou 
shalt  come;  and  thither  ye  shall  bring  your  burnt  offer- 
ings, and  your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes,  and  the  heave- 
offering  of  your  hand,  and  your  vows,  and  your  free- 
will offerings,  and  the  firstlings  of  your  herd  and  of 
your  flock:  and  there  ye  shall  eat  before  Jehovah  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  rejoice  in  all  that  ye  put  your  hand 
unto,  ye  and  your  households,  wherein  Jehovah  thy  God 
hath  blessed  thee."  ^^  The  differences  between  the  pro- 
visions of  the  two  codes  cannot  be  explained  by  assuming 
that  one  law  was  meant  for  the  desert,  the  other  for 
Canaan,  because  both  codes  are  looking  forward  to  the 
time  of  settlement  beyond  the  Jordan.^^ 

According  to  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  altar  of 
sacrifice  is  to  be  made  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone ;  not  so 
according  to  the  so-called  Priestly  Code.  Exod.  27.  i — 
a  part  of  the  Priestly  Code — records  the  command  con- 
cerning the  building  of  this  altar,  said  to  have  been  given, 

"Deut.  12.  2-7;  compare  also  14.  23;  16.  2,  6,  7,  etc. 
"Compare  Exod.  23.  2off  and  Deut.  12.  I. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  145 

like  Exod.  20.  24,  25,  on  Mount  Sinai :  "And  thou  shalt 
make  the  altar  of  acacia  wood."  This  is  followed  by 
minute  instructions  concerning  elaborate  details  of  con- 
struction, which  could  not  be  carried  out  without  the  use 
of  tools  strictly  prohibited  in  the  other  passage.  That 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering  was  meant,  as  in  Exod.  20.  24, 
is  definitely  stated  in  Exod.  38.  i,  which  narrates  the 
carrying  out  of  the  command  in  27.  iff.  Is  it  at  all 
probable  that  these  contradictory  laws  concerning  the 
place  of  sacrifice  were  given  by  one  and  the  same  man, 
two  of  them,  according  to  definite  statements,  on  Mount 
Sinai,  and  two  of  them  intended  for  the  period  after  the 
conquest  ? 

The  Priesthood.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  knows 
no  priestly  race.  It  would  be  strange  if  there  had  been 
no  priesthood  in  early  Israel ;  but  it  seems  that  during  the 
early  centuries  of  the  nation's  history  the  priests  might 
be  taken  from  any  tribe,  and  the  heads  of  families  were 
permitted  to  offer  sacrifice.-^  The  Deuteronomic  Code 
knows  a  priestly  race  or  tribe,  the  Levites :  "Thou  shalt 
come  unto  the  priests  the  Levites."  ^^  "The  priests  the 
Levites,  even  all  the  tribe  of  Levi."^^  "The  priests  the 
sons  of  Levi."  ^^  From  these  and  similar  expressions 
scattered  throughout  Deuteronomy  the  following  infer- 
ences may  be  drawn  :  ( i )  The  priesthood  was  confined  to 
members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  (2)  all  the  members 
of  the  tribe  of  Levi  were  priests. 

The  Priestly  Code  differs  from  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
in  that  it  limits  the  priesthood  to  a  particular  family  of 


•*  See  below,  p.  204. 
="  Deut.  17.  9,  18. 
*'  18. 1. 
'^21.5. 


146  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  assigning  the  lower 
offices  and  tasks  connected  with  the  worship  of  Yahweh 
to  the  other  members  of  the  tribe :  "And  bring  thou  near 
unto  thee  Aaron  thy  brother,  and  his  sons  with  him, 
from  among  the  children  of  Israel,  that  he  may  minister 
unto  me  in  the  priest's  office."  ^^  The  distinction  between 
the  duties  of  the  family  of  Aaron  and  those  of  the  other 
Levites  is  brought  out  in  this  command :  "And  Jehovah 
spake  unto  Moses,  saying:  Bring  the  tribe  of  Levi  near, 
and  set  them  before  Aaron  the  priest,  that  they  may 
minister  unto  him.  And  they  shall  keep  his  charge,  and 
the  charge  of  the  whole  congregation  before  the  tent  of 
meeting,  to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.  .  .  .  And 
thou  shalt  give  the  Levites  unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons: 
they  are  wholly  given  unto  him  on  the  behalf  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  And  thou  shalt  appoint  Aaron  and 
his  sons,  and  they  shall  keep  their  priesthood."  ^^  And 
again:  "And  Jehovah  said  unto  Aaron,  Thou  and  thy 
sons  and  thy  fathers'  house  with  thee  shall  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  sanctuary;  and  thou  and  thy  sons  with 
thee  shall  bear  the  iniquity  of  your  priesthood.  And  thy 
brethren  also,  the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  tribe  of  thy  father, 
bring  thou  near  with  thee,  that  they  may  be  joined  unto 
thee,  and  minister  unto  thee :  but  thou  and  thy  sons  with 
thee  shall  be  before  the  tent  of  the  testimony.  And  they 
shall  keep  thy  charge,  and  the  charge  of  all  the  Tent: 
only  they  shall  not  come  nigh  unto  the  vessels  of  the 
sanctuary  and  unto  the  altar,  that  they  die  not,  neither 
they,  nor  ye.  And  they  shall  be  joined  unto  thee,  and 
keep  the  charge  of  the  tent  of  the  meeting,  for  all  the 
service  of  the  Tent :  and  a  stranger  shall  not  come  nigh 

^  Exod.  28.  I. 
•*  Num.  3.  S-io. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  147 

unto  you.  And  ye  shall  keep  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary, 
and  the  charge  of  the  altar ;  that  there  be  wrath  no  more 
upon  the  children  of  Israel.  And  I,  behold,  I  have  taken 
your  brethren  the  Levites  from  among  the  children  of 
Israel :  to  you  they  are  a  gift,  given  unto  Jehovah,  to  do 
the  service  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  And  thou  and  thy 
sons  with  thee  shall  keep  your  priesthood  for  everything 
of  the  altar,  and  for  that  within  the  veil;  and  ye  shall 
serve :  I  give  you  the  priesthood  as  a  service  of  gift."  ^^ 

Is  it  not  clear  that  the  three  codes  represent  three 
entirely  distinct  views  of  the  personnel  of  the  priesthood? 
If  so,  is  it  probable  that  all  three  reflect  the  view  of  one 
single  author  ?  Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  interpret  the 
differences  as  due  to  the  fact  that  the  three  codes  mark 
three  stages  in  the  development  of  Hebrew  legislation? 
Similar  differences  may  be  seen  in  the  laws  concerning 
other  matters  connected  with  the  ritual  and  religious 
institutions — the  payment  of  tithes,  the  first-bom,  the 
cities  of  the  priests,  and  many  more.'^^ 

Slavery.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  contains  the 
following  law  regarding  slavery:  "If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew 
servant,  six  years  he  shall  serve:  and  in  the  seventh  he 
shall  go  out  free  for  nothing.  If  he  come  in  by  himself, 
he  shall  go  out  by  himself :  if  he  be  married,  then  his  wife 
shall  go  out  with  him.  If  his  master  give  him  a  wife, 
and  she  bear  him  sons  or  daughters;  the  wife  and  her 
children  shall  be  her  master's,  and  he  shall  go  out  by 
himself.  But  if  the  servant  shall  plainly  say,  I  love  my 
master,  my  wife,  and  my  children;  I  will  not  go  out  free: 


"Num.  18.  1-7. 

•'The  diflFerent  laws  are  conveniently  arranged  in  C.  F,  Kent, 
Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents;  the  sections  devoted  to  "Cere- 
monial Laws." 


148  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

then  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  God,  and  shall 
bring  him  to  the  door,  or  unto  the  door-post;  and  his 
master  shall  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl;  and  he 
shall  serve  him  forever."  ^'^ 

A  law  relating  to  the  same  subject  is  found  in  the 
Deuteronomic  Code:  "If  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man,  or 
a  Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto  thee,  and  serve  thee  six 
years ;  then  in  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  him  go  free 
from  thee.  And  when  thou  lettest  him  go  free  from  thee, 
thou  shalt  not  let  him  go  empty :  thou  shalt  furnish  him 
liberally  out  of  thy  flock,  and  out  of  thy  threshing-floor, 
and  out  of  thy  winepress;  as  Jehovah  thy  God  hath 
blessed  thee  thou  shalt  give  unto  him.  And  thou  shalt 
remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  Jehovah  thy  God  redeemed  thee:  therefore 
I  command  thee  this  thing  to-day.  And  it  shall  be,  if 
he  say  unto  thee,  I  will  not  go  out  from  thee;  because 
he  loveth  thee  and  thy  house,  because  he  is  well  with  thee ; 
then  thou  shalt  take  an  awl,  and  thrust  it  through  his  ear 
unto  the  door,  and  he  shall  be  thy  servant  forever."  ^^ 
The  first  of  these  laws  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai,"*^  the 
other  in  the  land  of  Moab.^"  The  closing  verses  of  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant*^  suggest  that  the  laws  contained 
therein  were  intended  for  the  life  in  Canaan,  which  is 
definitely  asserted  of  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy.^^ 

The  Priestly  Code  has  this  to  say  on  the  subject :  "And 
if  thy  brother  be  waxed  poor  with  thee,  and  sell  himself 
unto  thee;  thou  shalt  not  make  him  to  serve  as  a  bond- 


"'Exod.  21.  2-6. 
**Deut.  IS.  12-17. 
^  Exod.  20.  21. 
^''Deut.  I.  1-5. 
*'  Exod.  23.  2off. 
*^  Deut.  6.  I ;  12.  i,  etc. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  149 

servant.  As  a  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner,  he  shall 
be  with  thee;  he  shall  serve  with  thee  unto  the  year  of 
jubilee:  then  shall  he  go  out  from  thee,  he  and  his  chil- 
dren with  him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family, 
and  unto  the  possessions  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return. 
For  they  are  my  servants,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt :  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen."  ^^ 
Like  the  law  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  this  law  was 
given  on  Mount  Sinai,  and,  like  both  the  preceding  laws, 
it  was  intended  for  life  in  Canaan.^* 

A  comparison  of  the  two  laws  said  to  have  been  given 
on  Mount  Sinai  reveals  the  following  important  differ- 
ences : 

Exodus  Leviticus 

(i)   Permits  enslavement  of  He-      Prohibits    such    enslavement. 

brews.  Hired  service  to  continue  to  the 

(2)  Length  of  service — six  years.  year  of  Jubilee. 

(3)  Makes  provision  for  perma-      Permits  no  enslavement  at  all. 

nent  enslavement.  The  family  goes  with  the  liber- 

(4)  Under  certain  conditions  the  ated  hired  servant. 

family    remains    with    the 
master. 

In  the  light  of  these  striking  differences,  is  it  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  three  laws  were  given  by  one 
and  the  same  lawgiver,  two  of  them  at  practically  the 
same  time,  and  all  three  to  be  put  into  practice  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  place? 

These  and  numerous  other  phenomena  of  a  similar 
nature,  discoverable  in  all  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  rnust 
be  faced.  And  the  question  may  well  be  asked :  Can  the 
repetitions,  differences,  and  discrepancies  found  in  the 


*'  Lev.  25.  39-42. 
**  Lev.  25.  I,  2. 


I50  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

narrative  and  legal  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  be  har- 
monized with  the  view  that  everything  in  the  Pentateuch, 
with,  perhaps,  a  few  minor  exceptions,  proceeded  from 
one  and  the  same  author,  or  that  Moses  is  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form? 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

3.      Dll!"FERENCES  IN  THEOLOGICAL  CONCEPTION,  StYLE, 

AND  Vocabulary 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

3.    Differences  in  Theological  Conception,  Style, 
AND  Vocabulary 

I.  Differences  in  Theological  Conception.  The  dif- 
ferences in  theological  conception  revealed  in  different 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  constitute  another  phase  of  the 
argument  by  which,  it  is  thought,  the  composite  char- 
acter of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  established.  The  por- 
tions of  the  Genesis  narrative  v^hich  are  bound  together 
by  the  use  of  the  divine  name  "Yahweh"  reflect  a  very 
primitive  and  pronounced  anthropomorphic  conception 
of  the  Deity,  and  the  same  characteristic  may  be  traced 
in  portions  of  the  remaining  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Yahweh  is  represented  not  only  as  forming  human  reso- 
lutions and  as  swayed  by  human  emotions,  which  is 
common  also  in  later  books,  but  as  performing  his  acts 
in  a  human  way.  Thus  he  is  said  to  fonn  or  fashion 
man  and  the  animals,^  and  to  breathe  into  man's  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life;^  he  takes  a  rib  from  man's  body  and 
closes  up  the  opening;^  he  builds  the  rib  into  a  zvoman;* 
he  plants  the  garden;^  he  takes  man  and  sets  him  down 

*  Gen.  2. 7, 19. 
^2.7. 

*2.  21. 

*  2.  22. 

153 


154  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

in  it  f  he  walks  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day ;'  he 
closes  the  door  of  the  ark  after  Noah  enters  f  he  speaks 
as  if  he  were  jealous  of  man;^  he  goes  down  to  confound 
the  speech  of  the  builders  of  the  tower  of  Babel  ;^^  he 
appears  in  human  form  to  Abraham  and  eats  with  him  ;^^ 
he  goes  to  make  inquiry  about  the  iniquity  of  Sodom  ;^^ 
he  wrestles  with  Jacob  ;^^  he  meets  Moses  and  seeks  to 
kill  him;  etc.^* 

The  same  sections  abound  in  ethical  and  theological 
reflection,  introduced  perhaps  by  a  later  reviser,  who 
sought  to  make  the  narratives  embodied  in  the  original 
document  vehicles  of  profound  religious  and  ethical 
teaching.  In  the  words  of  Dillmann :  "He  [that  is,  the 
author  of  these  sections]  deals  with  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  sin  and  evil  in  the  world,  and  follows  its  growth 
(Gen.  2-4;  6.  1-8) ;  he  notices  the  evil  condition  of  man's 
heart  even  after  the  Flood  (8.  21),  traces  the  develop- 
ment of  heathen  feeling  and  heathen  manners  (11.  iflf. ; 
9.  22ff. ;  19.  iff. ;  33ff.)>  ^^^  emphasizes  strongly  the  want 
of  faith  and  disobedience  visible  even  in  the  Israel  of 
Moses's  days  (Exod.  16.  4,  5,  25-30;  17.  2,  7;  14.  11,  12; 
32.  9-14;  33.  12  to  34.  28;  Num.  11;  14;  25.  iff.;  Deut. 
31.  16-22).  He  shows  in  opposition  to  this  how  God 
works  for  the  purpose  of  counteracting  the  ruin  incident 
to  man,  partly  by  punishment,  partly  by  choosing  and 
educating,  first  Israel's  forefathers  to  live  as  godlike  men, 
and  finally  Israel  itself  to  become  the  holy  people  of  God. 
He  represents  Abraham's  migration  into  Canaan  as  the 


•2.15.  "18. 1-8. 

^3.8.  "18.21. 

'7.16.  "32.24-32. 

•  3. 22.  "  Exod.  4. 24. 
"11.6,7. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  155 

result  of  a  divine  call  and  promise  (Gen.  12.  1-3;  24.  7)  ; 
expresses  clearly  the  aim  and  object  of  this  call  (18.  18, 
19)  ;  exhibits  in  strong  contrast  to  human  sin  the  divine 
mercy,  long-suffering,  and  faithfulness  (Gen.  6.  8;  8.  21, 
22\  21^. \  Exod.  32.  9-14;  33.  i2ff.)  ;  recognizes  the  uni- 
versal significance  of  Israel  in  the  midst  of  the  nations  of 
the  world  (Gen.  12.  2,  3;  27.  29;  Exod.  4.  22,  23;  19.  5,  6; 
Num.  24.  9)  ;  declares  in  classical  words  the  final  end  of 
Israel's  education  (Num.  11.  29;  compare  Gen.  18.  19 
R.  V. ;  Exod.  19.  5,  6)  ;  and  formulates  under  the  term 
'belief  the  spirit  in  which  man  should  respond  to  the 
revealing  work  of  God  (Gen.  15.  6;  Exod.  4.  i,  5,  8,  9,  31 ; 
14.  31;  19.  9;  compare  Num.  14.  11,  and  Deut.  i.  32; 
9.  23).  And  in  order  to  illustrate  the  divine  purpose  of 
grace,  as  manifested  in  history,  he  introduces  at  certain 
points  prophetic  glances  into  the  future  (Gen.  3.  15 ;  5.  29; 
8.  21;  9.  25-27;  12.  2,  3;  18.  18,  19;  28.  14;  Num.  24.  17, 
18),  as  he  also  loves  to  point  to  the  character  of  nations 
or  tribes  as  foreshadowed  in  their  beginnings  (Gen.  9. 
22^.;  16.  12;  19.  3iff.;  25.  25ff.;  34.  25ff.;  35.  22;  com- 
pare 49.  9ff.)"  ^^ 

The  same  group  of  narratives  shows  less  tendency  than 
is  seen  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  to  explain  signifi- 
cant events  by  appeal  to  the  extraordinary,  miraculous,  or 
supernatural;  there  is  a  more  general  recognition  of  the 
play  of  natural  forces.  This  appears,  for  example,  in 
the  stories  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt^®  and  of  the  crossing 
of  the  Red  Sea.^' 

Somewhat  different  and  more  elevated  theological  ideas 


^®A.  Dillmann,  Numeri,  Deuteronomium,  Josua,  pp.  629,  630. 
"Exod.  8.  1-4;  8.  20-32;  9.  1-7;  etc.;  compare  these  with  8.  5-7; 
9.  8-12,  etc. 
"  Exod.  14.  21. 


156  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

appear  in  a  group  of  narratives  characterized,  in  its 
earlier  parts,  by  the  use  of  Elohim  instead  of  Yahweh — 
in  other  words,  in  the  narratives  generally  assigned  to 
the  Elohistic  document.  True,  these  narratives  mention 
the  local  sanctuaries  and  the  "pillars"  without  a  sign  of 
disapproval;  but  they  lend  no  support  to  unspiritual 
service,  and  the  putting  away  of  "strange  gods"  meets 
the  author's  full  approval.^  ^  The  God  of  these  parts 
appears  not  in  bodily  form  but  in  dreams, ^^  and  he  carries 
out  his  plans  through  the  ministry  of  angels. ^° 

Closely  connected  with  this  higher  view  of  the  divine 
manifestations  is  the  representation  of  Abraham  as  a 
prophet,  possessing  the  power  of  effectual  intercession.^^ 
Moses,  though  not  called  a  prophet,  is  represented  as 
intrusted  with  a  prophet's  mission  -^"^  and  he  appears  as  a 
prophet  in  all  essentials,  holding  exceptionally  close  com- 
munion with  his  God.^^ 

Though  the  standpoint  of  the  narratives  in  this  group, 
like  that  of  the  group  previously  discussed,  is  prophetic, 
there  is  less  evidence  of  conscious  ethical  and  theological 
reflection.  Thus,  the  prophetic  or  didactic  purpose  of  the 
long  Joseph  narratives  is  expressed  in  a  single  verse. ^* 
The  lesson  to  be  taught  is  the  mysterious  manner  in  which 
God  effects  his  purposes  through  human  means,  even 
though  it  be  without  the  knowledge,  or  contrary  to  the 
wishes,  of  those  who  actually  bring  them  to  pass. 

Both  groups  of  narratives  have  much  to  say  about  the 


"Gen.  35.  2-4;  Jos.  24.  1-25. 

"Gen.  20.  3;  31.  24;  Num.  22.  9,  20. 

'"Gen.  21.  17;  22.  11;  28.  12. 

"  Gen.  20.  7. 

"^  Exod.  3. 

"Exod.  ZZ-  II ;  Num.  12.  6-8;  compare  Deut.  34.  10. 

"Gen.  50.  20;  compare  45.  5-8. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  157 

sacred  sites  of  Palestine.  The  people  loved  to  think  of 
their  ancestors  as  frequenting  the  spots  which  they  them- 
selves held  sacred;  and  the  traditions  attached  to  the 
localities  are  recounted  by  the  two  narrators. 

The  theological  conceptions  of  a  third  group  of  narra- 
tives and  laws,  known  as  P,  or  the  Priestly  Code,  inter- 
woven with  the  two  groups  already  discussed — J  and  E — 
present  striking  contrasts  to  those  of  the  other  two  docu- 
ments. The  representation  of  the  Deity  is  much  less 
anthropomorphic,  and  there  are  no  angels  or  dreams  as 
means  of  communication.  Again  in  the  words  of  Dill- 
mann :  "Certainly,  he  [the  author  of  this  group  of  narra- 
tives] speaks  of  God  as  'appearing'  to  men,  and  as  'going 
up'  from  them  (Gen.  17.  i,  22,  23;  35.  9,  13;  48.  3; 
Exod.  6.  3)  at  important  moments  of  the  history,  but  he 
gives  no  further  description  of  his  appearances :  usually, 
the  revelation  of  God  to  men  takes  with  him  the  form  of 
simple  speaking  to  them  (Gen.  i.  29;  6.  13 ;  7.  i ;  8.  15; 
9.  I ;  Exod.  6.  12,  13,  etc.)  ;  only  in  the  supreme  revelation 
on  Sinai  (Exod.  24.  16,  17;  compare  34.  29b),  and  when 
he  is  present  in  the  Tent  of  Meeting  (Exod.  40.  34,  35), 
does  he  describe  him  as  manifesting  himself  in  a  form 
of  light  and  fire  C"'^?),  and  as  speaking  there  with  Moses 
(Exod.  25.  22;  Num.  7.  89),  as  man  to  man,  or  in  order 
that  people  may  recognize  him  (Exod.  16.  10;  Lev.  9.  6, 
23,  24;  Num.  14.  10;  16.  19,  42;  20.  6).  Wrath  also 
proceeds  from  him  (Num.  16.  46),  or  destroying  fire 
and  death  (Lev.  10.  2;  Num.  14.  37;  16.  35,  45!?.; 
25.  8,  9).  But  anthropopathic  expressions  of  God  he 
avoids  scrupulously;  even  anthropomorphic  expressions 
are  rare  (Gen.  2.  2,  3 ;  compare  Exod.  31.  17b),  so  that 
a  purpose  is  here  unmistakable.  It  may  be  that  as  a  priest 
he  was  accustomed  to  think  and  speak  of  God  more 


158  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

strictly  and  circumspectly  than  other  writers,  even  those 
who  were  prophets.  On  the  other  hand,  he  nowhere 
touches  on  the  deeper  problems  of  theology.  On  such 
subjects  as  the  justice  of  the  divine  government  of  the 
world,  the  origin  of  sin  and  evil,  the  insufficiency  of  all 
human  righteousness  (see  on  the  contrary.  Gen.  5.  24; 
6.  9),  he  does  not  pause  to  reflect;  the  free  divine  choice, 
though  not  unknown  to  him  (Num.  3.  12,  13;  8.  16; 
17.  5ff. ;  18.  6),  is  at  least  not  so  designedly  opposed  to 
human  claims  as  in  J.  His  work  contains  no  Messianic 
outlooks  into  the  future;  his  ideal  lies  in  the  theocracy, 
as  he  conceives  it  realized  by  Moses  and  Joshua."  ^^ 

The  influence  of  this  ideal  is  seen  in  the  promises  made 
to  the  patriarchs,  which,  unlike  those  reported  by  J,  are 
restricted  to  Israel.^^  "The  substance  of  these  promises," 
says  S.  R.  Driver,  "is  the  future  growth  and  glory  of  the 
Abrahamic  clan ;  the  establishment  of  a  covenant  with  its 
members  implying  a  special  relation  between  them  and 
God  (Gen.  17.  7b;  Exod.  6.  7a),  and  the  confirmation  of 
the  land  of  Canaan  as  their  possession.  The  Israelitish 
theocracy  is  the  writer's  ideal;  and  the  culminating 
promise  is  that  in  Exod.  29.  43-46,  declaring  the  abiding 
presence  of  God  with  his  people  Israel."  ^' 

In  the  legal  sections  belonging  to  this  group  religion  is 
defined  largely  in  terms  of  ritual  and  form,  which  is  at 
variance  with  the  spirit  of  J  and  E.  There  is  an  elaborate 
ritual  for  the  offering  of  sacrifice,  and  great  prominence 
is  given  to  the  sin  and  trespass  offerings,  which  are  not 
even  mentioned  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  A 
sharp  distinction  is  made  between  the  priests,  the  sons  of 


"  Numeri,  Deuteronomium,  Josua,  p.  653. 
"Gen.  17.  6-8;  28.  3-4;  35.  11,  12;  Exod.  6.  4,  6,  7. 
"Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  129. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  159 

Aaron,  and  the  Levites ;  only  here  is  introduced  the  high 
priest  with  a  full  description  of  his  dignity  and  privileges, 
and  ample  provision  is  made  for  the  support  of  both 
priests  and  Levites. 

D,  like  the  other  documents,  has  its  own  peculiar  theo- 
logical conceptions.  Its  fundamental  theological  truth  is 
expressed  in  these  words :  "Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah  our 
God  is  one  Jehovah"  ;2^  and  its  fundamental  law,  reiter- 
ated again  and  again,  upon  which  all  other  requirements 
rest,  assumes  this  form:  "Thou  shalt  love  Jehovah  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  might."  ^^  While  J  and  E  make  much  of  the  old 
sacred  places  by  connecting  them  with  the  history  of  the 
patriarchs  and  the  appearances  of  Yahweh  and  his 
angels,^^  D  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  them;  while  J 
and  E  seem  to  consider  the  "pillar"  a  perfectly  legitimate 
symbol  of  Hebrew  religion,^^  D  contains  this  prohibition : 
"Thou  shalt  not  plant  thee  an  Asherah  of  any  kind  of  tree 
beside  the  altar  of  Jehovah  thy  God,  which  thou  shalt 
make  thee.  Neither  shalt  thou  set  up  a  pillar,  which 
Jehovah  thy  God  hateth."  ^^ 

D  differs  from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  which  is 
closely  connected  with  JE,  regarding  the  place  of  sacri- 
fice :  the  latter  permits  the  bringing  of  sacrifice  in  different 
places  ;^^  D  insists  again  and  again  that  there  is  but  one 
legitimate  place  of  public  worship,  "the  place  which 
Jehovah  thy  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  the  tribes."  2* 

"  Deut.  6.  4. 

'"Deut.  6.  5;  10.  12;  II.  I,  13,  22;  13.  3. 

"Gen.  12.  6;  21.  33;  28.  18-22;  31.  13,  49,  etc. 

"Gen.  28.  18-22;  31.  13,  45 ;  Josh.  24.  26. 

*'  Deut.  16.  21,  22. 

^  Exod.  20.  24. 

"Deut.  12.  5,  II,  14,  18,  21,  26;  14.  23-25;  15.  20;  16.  2,  6,  7,  etc. 


i6o  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

It  differs  from  P  regarding  the  personnel  of  the  priest- 
hood :  the  Priestly  Code  limits  the  priesthood  to  the  sons 
of  Aaron  ;^^  D  recognizes  all  the  sons  of  Levi  as  priests.^^ 
The  marked  differences  in  theological  conception  re- 
vealed by  the  several  groups  of  narratives  and  laws  stand 
out  much  more  prominently  when  the  several  groups  are 
read  consecutively;  but  even  this  brief  outline  may  be 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  differences  cannot  easily  be 
harmonized  with  a  belief  in  unity  of  authorship. 
.  2.  Differences  in  Style.  The  force  of  the  argument 
drawn  from  differences  in  style  cannot  be  fully  appreci- 
ated without  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew ;  nevertheless,  even 
the  English  student  can  at  least  "feel"  certain  differences 
in  the  style  of  different  sections  of  the  Pentateuch.  As 
in  other  matters,  the  differences  between  J  and  E  are 
not  as  great  as  those  between  JE  on  the  one  hand,  and 
D  or  P  on  the  other;  which  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
former  come  from  approximately  the  same  age — the 
creative  age  of  prophetic  narration.  However,  a  few 
differences  between  J  and  E  may  be  noted :  J  dwells  less 
than  E  upon  concrete  particulars;  but  he  excels  in  the 
power  of  delineating  life  and  character.  He  is,  indeed, 
the  best  narrator  in  the  Bible.  "His  touch,"  says  Driver, 
"is  singularly  light :  with  a  few  strokes  he  paints  a  scene 
which,  before  he  has  finished,  is  impressed  indelibly  upon 
his  reader's  memory.  In  ease  and  grace  his  narratives 
are  unsurpassed;  everything  is  told  with  precisely  the 
amount  of  detail  that  is  required;  the  narrative  never 
lingers,  and  the  reader's  interest  is  sustained  to  the  end. 
His  dialogues  especially  (which  are  frequent)  are  remark- 
able for  the  delicacy  and  truthfulness  with  which  char- 


"Exod.  28.  i;  Num.  3.  5-10;  18.  1-7. 
"Deut.  17.  9,  18;  18.  i;  21.  5. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  i6i 

acter  and  emotions  find  expression  in  them."  ^'^  E  is 
perhaps  a  httle  more  terse  in  style,  but  its  narratives  are 
on  the  whole  so  well  told  that  it  is  not  easy  to  see  wherein 
they  fall  short  of  J,  except  that  at  times  they  lack  the 
spontaneous  charm  and  strength  of  the  other. 

The  style  of  the  P  sections  is  altogether  different. 
Again,  in  the  words  of  Driver:  "If  JE — and  especially  J 
— be  free,  flowing,  and  picturesque,  P  is  stereotyped, 
measured,  and  prosaic.  The  narrative,  both  as  a  whole 
and  in  its  several  parts,  is  articulated  systematically; 
the  beginning  and  close  of  an  enumeration  are  regularly 
marked  by  stated  formulae  (Gen.  5.  6-8,  9-1 1,  12-14, 
etc.;  or  Gen.  i.  5b,  8b,  13,  etc.).  The  descriptions 
are  methodical  and  precise.  When  they  embrace  de- 
tails, emphasis  (Gen.  i.  29;  6.  17;  9.  3)  and  complete- 
ness (Gen.  10.  5,  20,  31 ;  36.  40;  23.  17;  36.  6;  etc.)  are 
studied;  hence  a  thought  is  often  repeated  in  sHghtly 
different  words  (Gen.  2.  2,  3;  23.  17-20;  Exod.  12.  18-20; 
etc.).  There  is  a  tendency  to  describe  an  object  in  full 
each  time  that  it  is  mentioned  (compare  Gen.  i.  7  beside 
verse  6;  verse  11  beside  verse  10;  8.  18,  19  beside  verses 
16,  17)  ;  a  direction  is  followed,  as  a  rule,  by  an  account 
of  its  execution,  usually  in  the  same  words  (Gen.  i.  6,  7; 
II,  12;  24,  25;  6.  18-20;  7.  13-16;  etc.).  Sometimes  the 
circumstantiality  leads  to  diffuseness,  as  in  parts  of  Num. 
4  and  (an  extreme  case)  Num.  7.  Metaphors,  similes, 
etc.,  are  eschewed  (Num.  27.  17b  is  an  exception),  and 
there  is  generally  an  absence  of  the  poetical  or  dramatic 
element,  which  is  frequently  conspicuous  in  the  other 
historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (including  J  and 
E).  To  a  greater  extent  than  in  any  other  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  preference  shown  in  P  for  standing 

''  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  119. 


i62  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

formidcu  and  expressions;  some  of  these  recur  with  great 
frequency,  and  are  apparent  in  a  translation.  Particularly 
noticeable  is  an  otherwise  uncommon  mode  of  expression, 
producing  a  peculiar  rhythm,  by  which  a  statement  is  first 
made  in  general  terms,  and  then  partly  repeated,  for  the 
purpose  of  receiving  closer  limitation  or  definition  (Gen. 
I.  27;  6.  14;  8.  5;  9.  5;  23.  II,  etc.).  It  seems  as  though 
the  habits  of  thought  and  expression,  which  the  author 
had  contracted  through  his  practical  acquaintance  with 
the  law,  were  carried  by  him  into  his  treatment  of  purely 
historical  subjects."  ^^ 

In  a  comparison  of  style  D  might  almost  be  left  out  of 
consideration  because,  while  J  and  E  are  chiefly  historical, 
D  represents  the  legal  literature,  a  difference  in  subject 
matter  that  would  produce  differences  in  style  and  ex- 
pression, though  the  author  were  the  same.  Since  P 
contains  much  legal  material,  it  is  easier  to  institute  com- 
parisons between  it  and  D.  Comparing,  now,  the  style 
of  the  legal  portions  of  P  with  D,  even  the  reader  of  an 
English  translation  can  notice  this  difference :  P  is  cold, 
legal,  formal,  and  precise ;  D  is  rhetorical  and  hortatory ; 
the  style  of  the  latter  closely  resembles  that  of  the  great 
prophets. 

The  stylistic  peculiarities  of  the  several  documents  are, 
indeed,  so  marked  that  they  fully  justify  the  claim  of 
C.  A.  Briggs:  "There  is  as  great  a  difference  in  style 
between  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch  as  there  is 
between  the  four  Gospels."  ^^ 

3.  Differences  in  Vocabulary.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult 
to  present  this  part  of  the  argument  in  any  sort  of  popular 
form,  hence  all  that  is  attempted  here  is  to  enumerate  a 

^  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  129, 130. 
"  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  p.  75. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  163 

few  of  the  characteristic  expressions  of  each  document 
which  seem  to  point  in  the  direction  of  diversity  of 
authorship  :^^ 

The  following  words  are  characteristic  of  the  portions 
assigned  to  J :  Yahweh  is  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel 
even  in  pre-Mosaic  times  ;'*^  Sinai,  not  Horeb,  is  the  name 
of  the  mountain  on  which  the  law  was  given ;  Israel,  not 
Jacob,  is  the  name  of  the  third  patriarch  from  the  birth  of 
Benjamin  on.  The  inhabitants  of  Palestine  are  called 
Canaanites;  the  regular  name  of  Mesopotamia  is  Aram 
Naharaim;  Egypt  is  used  as  equivalent  to  Egyptian.  The 
longer  form  of  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  dnokhl  is 
used,  not  anl.  Characteristic  phrases  are :  To  find  favor 
or  grace  in  the  sight  of  .  .  .  ;  to  call  on  the  name  of. . . . ; 
to  run  to  meet.  .  .  .;  took  him  a  wife.  .  .  ;  to  preserve 
seed  alive.  .  .  .;  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of.  .  .  .;  the 
particle  na  with  the  imperative,  etc. 

As  characteristic  of  E  may  be  noted :  The  use  of  the 
divine  name  Elohim  in  Genesis;  the  pre-Israelitish  in- 
habitants of  Palestine  are  called  Amorites,  not  Canaan- 
ites ;  the  mountain  of  God  is  called  Horeb,  not  Sinai ;  from 
Gen.  32  on  Jacob  is  used  in  preference  to  Israel ;  the  name 
of  Moses's  father-in-law  is  Jethro.  Characteristic  ex- 
pressions are  also :  the  man  Moses,  and  to  bring  up  from 
the  land  of  Egypt,  where  J  uses  to  bring  out. 

The  linguistic  peculiarities  of  P  are  very  numerous. 
Driver  enumerates  fifty  expressions  characteristic  of  the 
narrative  portions  of  P,  many  of  which  occur  never  or 
rarely   in   other   books,    some   of   them   only   again   in 

**  See,  further,  art.  "Hexateuch,"  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible;  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  pp.  99ff.,  etc.;  Carpenter  and  Harford-Battersby,  Hexa- 
teuch, pp.  iSsff. 

"  See  above,  chapter  VIII. 


i64  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Ezekiel.*^  Of  these  may  be  mentioned :  The  use  of  the 
divine  name  Elohim  in  Genesis;  Paddan  Aram  is  the 
regular  name  for  Mesopotamia;  the  mountain  of  God  is 
called  Sinai,  as  in  J,  never  Horeb.  The  shorter  form  of 
the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  singular  am  is  used  130 
times,  the  longer  form  dnokht  only  once.  The  Hebrew 
ammim,  meaning  peoples,  is  used  in  the  sense  of  kinsfolk, 
especially  in  the  two  phrases  "that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  his  kinsfolk"  and  "to  be  gathered  unto  one's  kins- 
folk." Other  peculiar  expressions  are :  To  he  fruitfid  and 
multiply  .  .  .;  this  selfsame  day  [literally  "the  bone  of 
this  day"]  .  .  .',  after  their  families  .  .  .;  soul  [nephesh] 
in  the  sense  of  "person"  .  .  . ;  throughout  their  genera- 
tions .  .  .;  congregation  of  the  Israelites  .  .  .;  accord- 
ing to  the  mouth  [command]  of  .  .  . ;  etc. 

D  also  has  its  characteristic  words  and  phrases :  Horeb 
is  used,  not  Sinai,  as  the  name  of  the  mountain  on  which 
the  law  was  given;  that  your  days  may  be  long  .  .  .;  a 
mighty  hand  and  a  stretched  out  arm  .  .  .;  the  stranger, 
the  fatherless,  and  the  widow  .  .  .;  and  remember  that 
thou  wast  a  bondman  in  Egypt  .  .  .;  to  do  what  is  right 
[or  evil]  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh  .  .  . ;  with  all  the  heart 
and  with  all  the  soul  .  .  .;  to  observe  to  do  .  .  .,  etc. 

The  differences  in  style  and  vocabulary — and  they  are 
much  more  numerous  than  this  brief  list  would  seem  to 
indicate — cannot  be  explained,  as  has  been  attempted,  on 
the  basis  of  differences  in  theme  or  subject  matter,  be- 
cause in  many  cases  the  differences  appear  in  sections 
dealing  with  one  and  the  same  theme.  Moreover,  while 
it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  arguments  from  language  and 
style,  when  standing  alone,  are  not  conclusive,  in  this  case 
the  linguistic  and  stylistic  evidence  does  not  stand  by 

*'  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  I3iff. 


COMPOSITE  CHARACTER  165 

itself;  it  appears  in  connection  with  the  differences  in 
theological  conception,  repetitions,  and  discrepancies,  and 
the  peculiar  use  of  the  divine  names — the  latter  being  in 
a  sense  a  part  of  the  linguistic  evidence — and  strikingly 
confirms  the  conclusions  as  to  diversity  of  authorship 
which  have  been  drawn  from  the  other  peculiarities. 

In  the  light  of  the  facts  presented  in  chapters  VIII-X 
and  others  of  a  similar  nature,  it  would  seem  that  the  view 
which  regards  the  Pentateuch  as  a  compilation  of  ma- 
terial taken  from  different  sources,  written  by  different 
authors,  is  not  the  result  of  unwarranted  speculation,  but 
is  developed  upon  the  basis  of  actual  facts  presented  in 
the  Pentateuch  from  beginning  to  end. 


CHAPTER  XI 

POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCH 


CHAPTER  XI 

POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

If  only  the  first  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  book  of 
Genesis,  were  a  compilation,  Moses  might,  perhaps,  be 
regarded  as  the  compiler,  and  the  author  of  the  remaining 
books. ^  But  if,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters, the  entire  group  of  books  is  in  the  nature  of  a  com- 
pilation, this  fact  in  itself  makes  belief  in  Mosaic  author- 
ship practically  impossible,  as  some  time  must  have 
elapsed  between  the  last  event  recorded — the  death  of 
Moses — and  the  production  of  the  compilation  in  its 
present  form.  There  are,  however,  some  additional, 
specific  considerations  that  have  convinced  scholars  that 
Moses  cannot  have  been  the  author.  The  present  chapter 
deals  with  one  of  these :  the  presence  of  references  and 
passages  which  by  their  very  contents  imply  that  they 
were  written  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Moses.  The  more 
important  of  these  may  be  enumerated  here : 

I.  Literary  Considerations,  (i)  The  use  of  the  third 
person  when  speaking  of  Moses.  No  doubt,  Moses  might 
have  referred  to  himself  in  the  third  person,  but  it  does 
not  necessarily  follow  that  he  actually  did.  Num.  33.  2, 
for  example,  reads :  "And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out 
according  to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of 
Jehovah;  and  these  are  their  journeys  according  to  their 

^  See  above,  p.   129, 

169 


170  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

goings  out."  This  statement  sounds  much  more  Hke  the 
introduction  to  a  quotation  from  a  record  of  Moses  than 
an  introduction  by  Moses  to  something  which  he  is  about 
to  write.  Or  take  Exod.  6.  26,  27.  "These  are  that 
Aaron  and  Moses,  to  whom  Jehovah  said,  Bring  out  the 
children  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt  according  to 
their  hosts.  These  are  they  that  spake  to  Pharaoh  king 
of  Egypt,  to  bring  out  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt : 
these  are  that  Moses  and  Aaron."  Naturally  interpreted, 
these  words  must  be  regarded  as  a  reference  to  Moses 
and  Aaron  written  by  some  one  other  than  Moses. 

(2)  Deut.  34.  1-8  records  the  death  and  burial  of 
Moses.  A  large  part  of  Jewish  tradition  and  practically 
all  Christian  tradition  accepting  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch,  ascribes  these  verses  to  Joshua.^  This  is 
done  not  because  of  any  external  evidence  pointing  to 
Joshua  as  the  author,  but  exclusively  on  the  basis  of  in- 
ternal evidence :  It  does  not  seem  reasonable  to  believe  that 
anyone  would  report  as  a  fact  of  history  his  own  death 
and  burial.  But  chapter  33  cannot  be  considered  the  close 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy ;  chapter  34  forms  a  literary 
unit  with  the  preceding  chapters.  Now,  if  it  is  permissible 
to  deny  one  passage  to  Moses  solely  on  the  basis  of 
internal  evidence,  why  not  others,  provided  the  internal 
evidence  is  sufficiently  decisive? 

2.  Geographical  References.  (l)  "Beyond  Jordan." 
The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  opens  with  these  words: 
"These  are  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel 
beyond  the  Jordan" ;  to  which  should  be  added  the  state- 
ment in  I.  5,  "beyond  the  Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Moab."  ^ 
From  this  it  would  seem  that  in  the  narrative  portions  of 

*  See  above,  pp.  44,  45.  86. 

'Compare  also  4.  41.  46,  47,  49;  Num.  22.  I. 


POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  171 

the  Pentateuch  the  territory  east  of  the  Jordan  is  called 
beyond  the  Jordan,  as  if  the  author  were  a  resident  of  the 
territory  west  of  the  Jordan,  which,  the  records  assert, 
Moses  never  entered.^     The  natural  inference  would  be 
that  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  these  and  similar  pas- 
sages in  the  Pentateuch.     To  escape  this  inevitable  infer- 
ence it  has  been  suggested  that  "beyond  the  Jordan"  was 
a  geographical  term  for  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan 
and  was  used  irrespectively  of  the  location  of  the  speaker.^ 
If  this  assertion  could  be  proved,  the  phrase  would  throw 
no  light  on  the  question  under  consideration;  but,  un- 
fortunately for  those  who  make  that  claim,  it  is  unwar- 
ranted ;  it  is  contradicted  by  the  fact  that  in  the  speeches 
which  are  said  to  have  been  delivered  east  of  the  Jordan 
the  same  phrase  is  used  of  the  territory  west  of  the  river.® 
(2)    Stereotyped   expressions   denoting   "south"    and 
"west."     The  common  Hebrew  word  for  "south"  is    ^M 
neghebh;'^  the  same  word  is  used  as  a  geographical  term 
denoting  the  southern  portion  of  Judah.     But  the  Negeb 
lay  southward  only  to  the  inhabitants  of  western  Pales- 
tine; hence  the  use  of  the  term  with  the  meaning  "south" 
presupposes  residence  west  of  the  Jordan,   which  was 
never  attained  by  Moses.     The  word  for  "west"  is    0; 
yam,^  a  word  meaning  also  "sea."     Now  the  sea — the 

*  Deut.  34.  4.  According  to  the  later  historical  books,  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Palestine  west  of  the  Jordan  referred  to  the  east  Jordan 
territory  in  the  same  way  (Josh.  2.  lo;  7.  7;  9-  10,  etc.;  Judg.  5.  17; 
10.  8. 

^  Compare  Gallia  Transalpina. 

'Deut.  3.  20,  25;  II.  30;  an  exception  is  found  in  3.  8,  where  the 
author  seems  to  have  forgotten  himself;  compare  also  Num.  32.  19, 
where  it  is  used  of  both  sides;  and  see  on  both  passages,  Driver, 
Deuteronomy,  p.  xliii. 

^Gen.  12.  9;  20.  I ;  24.  62;  etc. 

*Exod.  27.  12;  Num.  2.  18;  3.  23,  etc. 


172  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Mediterranean  Sea — was  immediately  west  of  Palestine, 
not  of  the  desert  or  of  Mount  Sinai. 

(3)  The  name  "Hebron"  seems  to  be  of  post-Mosaic 
origin.  Josh.  14.  15  contains  the  statement:  "Now  the 
name  of  Hebron  beforetime  was  Kiriath-arba ;  which  Arba 
was  the  greatest  man  among  the  Anakim" ;  and  15.  13 
implies  that  the  change  in  name  was  not  made  until 
after  the  city  had  been  assigned  to  Caleb.  But  Hebron 
is  named  several  times  in  Genesis''  and  at  least  once  in 
Numbers. ^'^'  Does  this  imply  that  Genesis  and  Numbers 
were  written  after  the  name  was  changed,  that  is,  after 
the  conquest  of  Canaan  ?    H  not,  what  is  the  explanation  ? 

(4)  The  occurrence  of  the  name  "Dan"  in  the  Penta- 
teuch points  in  the  same  direction.  The  name  is  said  to 
have  originated  in  the  age  of  the  Judges:  "They  [the 
Danites,  who  had  been  driven  northward  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges]  called  the  name  of  the  city  Dan, 
after  the  name  of  Dan  their  father,  who  was  born  unto 
Israel:  howbeit  the  name  of  the  city  was  Laish  at  the 
first."  ^^  Since  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  knew  the 
new  name,^^  the  question  naturally  arises.  Did  he  live 
subsequently  to  the  period  of  the  Judges? 

(5)  Deut.  3.  14  narrates  the  conquest  of  a  part  of  the 
east-Jordan  territory  in  these  words:  "Jair  the  son  of 
Manasseh  took  all  the  region  of  Argob,  unto  the  border 
of  the  Geshurites  and  the  Maacathites,  and  called  them, 
even  Bashan,  after  his  own  name,  Havvoth-jair  [towns  of 
Jair],  unto  this  day."  ^^  The  words  "unto  this  day"  are 
meaningless  if  written  immediately  after  the  naming;  they 

•Gen.  13.  18;  23.  2;  ZT-  M- 

'"Num.  13.  22. 

"Judg.  18.  29. 

"  Gen.  14.  14 ;  Deut.  34.  I. 

"  Compare  also  Num.  32.  41. 


POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  173 

would  seem  to  imply  the  lapse  of  a  considerable  period 
of  time.^^  In  Judg.  10.  3,  4  seems  to  be  another  narrative 
explaining  the  origin  of  the  name  :  "And  after  him  [Tola] 
arose  Jair,  the  Gileadite;  and  he  judged  Israel  twenty 
and  two  years.  And  he  had  thirty  sons  that  rode  on 
thirty  ass  colts,  and  they  had  thirty  cities,  which  are 
called  Havvoth-jair  unto  this  day,  which  are  in  the  land 
of  Gilead."  Were  the  stories  written  so  late  that  the 
origin  of  the  name  had  been  forgotten? 

(6)  In  Gen.  40.  15  Canaan  is  called  "the  land  of  the 
Hebrews."  Would  this  designation  be  used  before  the 
Hebrew  people  had  taken  possession  of  the  land,  so  that 
it  could  come  to  be  known  as  their  land? 

In  each  of  the  cases  mentioned  the  most  natural  inter- 
pretation requires  that  the  passage  be  assigned  to  a  date 
subsequent  to  Moses. 

3.  Historical  Statements,  (i)  Gen.  36.  31  states: 
"And  these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of 
Edom,  before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children 
of  Israel."  The  last  clause  presupposes  the  establishment 
of  the  monarchy  in  Israel,  for  the  words  certainly  imply 
that  the  author  knows  something  of  kings  in  Israel. 
There  is  nothing  anywhere  to  support  Green's  assumption 
that  the  Edomite  kings  were  pre-Mosaic.^^ 

(2)  The  expression  "the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land"  ^^  has  meaning  only  at  a  time  when  the  Canaanites 
had  disappeared,  at  least  as  an  independent  people ;  which 

"The  name  is  used  in  Josh.  13.  30,  in  the  narrative  of  the 
division  of  the  land. 

^"^  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  51.  If  Belah  the  son  of 
Beor  (verse  32)  is  the  same  as  Balaam  the  son  of  Beor  (Num. 
22.  5),  as  is  quite  probable,  the  list  of  eight  kings  might  well  reach 
to  the  beginning  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy. 

"Gen.  12.  6;  13.  7. 


174  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

would  point,  at  the  earliest,  to  the  reign  of  Solomon,  of 
whom  it  is  related :  As  for  all  the  people  that  were  left  of 
the  Amorites,  the  Hittites,  the  Perizzites,  the  Hivites,  and 
the  Jebusites,  who  were  not  of  the  children  of  Israel; 
their  children  that  were  left  after  them  in  the  land,  whom 
the  children  of  Israel  were  not  able  utterly  to  destroy, 
of  them  did  Solomon  raise  a  levy  of  bondservants  unto 
this  day."  '' 

(3)  Deut.  2.  12  reads:  "The  Horites  also  dwelt  in 
Seir  aforetime,  but  the  children  of  Esau  succeeded  them; 
and  they  destroyed  them  from  before  them,  and  dwelt 
in  their  stead ;  as  Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  possession, 
which  Jehovah  gave  unto  them."  This  reads  as  if  the 
writer  were  looking  back  to  the  conquest  as  an  accom- 
plished fact. 

(4)  In  several  passages  occurs  the  expression  "unto 
this  day."  Deut.  10.  8,  for  example,  reads:  "At  that 
time  Jehovah  set  apart  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  to  stand  before  Jehovah  to 
minister  unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name,  unto  this 
day."  ^^  True,  in  some  cases  the  expression  might  have 
been  used  in  the  days  of  Moses;  in  others,  however,  as 
in  the  passage  quoted,  it  would  be  more  intelligible  if  the 
statement  had  been  written  in  a  subsequent  age.  And  in 
the  light  of  the  facts  already  pointed  out,  this  is  the  more 
natural  view  in  all  cases. 

(5)  The  triumph  song  in  Exod.  15,  in  its  present  form, 
seems  to  presuppose  the  establishment  of  Yahweh's  sanc- 
tuary on  Mount  Zion,  or  at  least  his  rule  in  Palestine : 

Thou  in  thy  lovingkindness  hast  led  the  people  that  thou  hast 
redeemed : 


'  I  Kings  9.  20,  21. 

'  Compare  also  Gen.  32.  32 ;  35.  20 ;  Deut.  3.  14,  etc. 


POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  175 

Thou  hast  guided  them  in  thy  strength  to  thy  holy  haliitation.  . 
Thou  wilt  bring  them  in,  and  plant  them  in  the  mountain  of  thine 

inheritance, 
The  place,  O  Jehovah,  which  thou  hast  made  for  thee  to  dwell  in, 
The  sanctuary,  O  Lord,  which  thy  hands  have  established." 

(6)  Num.  21.  14  names  "the  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Jehovah"  as  the  source  from  which  a  song  or  fragment 
of  a  song  was  taken.  The  wars  of  Yahweh  can  hardly 
be  anything  but  the  wars  leading  to  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  which  the  Hebrews  carried  on  under  the  leader- 
ship and  direction  of  their  God.  But  the  existence  of  a 
collection  of  songs  describing  these  struggles  almost  cer- 
tainly presupposes  the  close  of  the  struggles  or,  at  least, 
a  more  advanced  stage  than  had  been  reached  even  at  the 
death  of  the  great  leader.  The  most  severe  fighting  began 
after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan. ^°  Moreover,  the  song 
quoted  is  used  to  prove  that  the  Arnon  marked  the 
boundary  line  between  Israel  and  Moab.  Did  the  con- 
temporaries of  Moses  need  such  proof  when  they  them- 
selves had  established  the  boundary? 

(7)  If  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch,  is  it  not 
strange  that  he  was  in  doubt  regarding  the  name  of  his 
own  father-in-law,  calling  him,  in  some  passages,  Reuel,^^ 
in  others,  Jethro  ?^^  The  difference  is  easily  explained  on 
the  assumption  that  different  traditions  as  to  the  name  of 
Moses's  father-in-law  were  current  in  Israel  subsequently 
to  the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  the  contradictory  tradi- 
tions were  preserved  in  the  diiTerent  documents. 

(8)  The  characterization  of  Moses  in  certain  passages 
reads  as  if  it  came  from  some  one  other  than  Moses: 


"Exod.  15.  13,  17. 

'"Compare  the  Book  of  Jashar,  Josh.  lo.  13;  2  Sam.  i.  18. 

"Exod.  2.  18  (J)  ;  Num.  10.  29  (J). 

"Exod.  3.  i;  18.  I  (E),  corrupted  in  4.  18  (also  E)  to  Jether. 


176  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

"Moreover  the  man  Moses  was  very  great  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  in  the  sight  of  Pharaoh's  servants,  and  in  the 
sight  of  the  people."  ^^  Or  again :  "Now  the  man  Moses 
was  very  meek,  above  all  the  men  that  were  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth."  ^^  And  again :  "And  there  hath  not 
arisen  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses,  whom 
Jehovah  knew  face  to  face."  ^^ 

(9)  The  book  of  Exodus  contains  two  accounts  of  the 
call  of  Moses. -^  If  both  came  from  Moses  himself,  it 
seems  very  strange  that  the  second  should  contain  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  first. 

4.  Archaeological  References.  (i)  The  expression 
"shekel  of  the  sanctuary"  ^"^  presupposes  the  sanctuary 
and  a  systematized  ritual,  for  the  reference  takes  it  for 
granted  that  everyone  knows  what  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary  is. 

(2)  The  reference  to  the  bedstead  of  Og  in  Deut.  3.  11 
reads  as  if  the  author  looked  upon  it  as  a  well-known 
relic.  Is  it  probable  that  Moses  would  speak  of  it  in  that 
manner,  since  his  listeners  or  readers  had  conquered  and 
slain  Og  that  very  year?^^ 

5.  Legislative  Enactments.  Many  of  the  legislative 
enactments  in  the  Pentateuch  presuppose  a  background 
other  than  that  of  the  desert. 

(i)  Exod.  23.  19,  for  example,  presupposes  agricul- 
tural pursuits  and,  perhaps,  the  existence  of  the  temple: 
"The  first  of  the  first  fruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring 
into  the  house  of  Jehovah  thy  God." 

^Exod.  II.  3. 

"  Num.  12.  3. 

''  Deut.  34-  10. 

"*  Exod.  3.  I  to  6.  I  (E),  and  6.  2  to  7.  7  (P). 

"Exod.  30.  13,  24;  38.  24-26. 

"Compare  verses  1-3;  Num.  21.  33. 


POST-MOSAIC  ELEMENTS  177 

(2)  Deut.  19.  14  looks  back  to  the  settlement  in  Canaan 
as  something  belonging  to  the  far  distant  past:  "Thou 
shalt  not  remove  thy  neighbor's  landmark,  which  they  of 
old  time  have  set,  in  thine  inheritance,  which  thou  shalt 
inherit,  in  the  land  that  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee  to 
possess  it." 

The  list  of  passages  quoted  and  referred  to  in  this 
chapter  is  by  no  means  exhaustive,  and  only  such  passages 
have  been  included  as  seem  to  imply  definitely  a  post- 
Mosaic  date.  At  any  rate,  each  passage  finds  a  natural 
interpretation  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  written  sub- 
sequently to  the  time  of  Moses  or  by  some  one  other  than 
that  great  leader  of  Israel. 

What,  now,  is  done  with  these  and  similar  passages 
by  the  defenders  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  ? 

Frequently  the  assertion  is  made  that  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  denying  them  to  Moses,  and  that  practically 
all  of  them  can  be  interpreted  as  coming  from  him.  But 
if  there  should  be  discovered  a  few  passages  that  cannot 
be  assigned  to  him,  they  must  be  explained  as  later  inter- 
polations. In  the  words  of  Green:  "Even  if  it  could  be 
demonstrated  that  a  certain  paragraph  or  paragraphs  were 
post-Mosaic,  this  would  merely  prove  that  such  paragraph 
or  paragraphs  could  not  have  belonged  to  the  Pentateuch 
as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  Moses,  not  that  the  work  as  a 
whole  did  not  proceed  from  him.  It  is  far  easier  to 
assume  that  some  slight  additions  may  here  and  there 
have  been  made  to  the  text,  than  to  set  aside  the  multi- 
plied and  invincible  proofs  that  the  Pentateuch  was  the 
production  of  Moses."  ^^ 

Other  passages  are  passed  over  in  silence,  or  are  dis- 

"  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  51. 


178  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

posed  of  without  serious  attempt  to  meet  the  problems 
raised  by  them. 

Now,  while  it  is  true  that  Moses  might,  perhaps,  have 
written  some  of  the  passages  enumerated,  others  cannot 
possibly  come  from  him;  and  in  every  case  the  only 
natural  interpretation  is  that  which  ascribes  the  passage 
to  another  author.  Again,  while  some  of  the  passages 
might,  perhaps,  be  thrown  out  as  interpolations,  others 
are  so  closely  bound  up  with  their  context  that  they  would 
carry  with  them  large  sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the 
resulting  breaking  up  of  continuity  in  narration  would 
increase  rather  than  diminish  the  difficulties.  On  the 
other  hand,  all  the  difficulties  disappear  if  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  narratives  in  which  the  alleged  post- 
Mosaic  elements  are  found  were  written  in  the  periods  to 
which  modern  scholarship  assigns  them. 


CHAPTER  XII 
THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH 

One  of  the  most  significant  events  in  Hebrew  religious 
history  is  that  recorded  in  2  Kings  22,  23  and  2  Chron. 
34,  35.  The  substance  of  the  narrative  is  as  follows: 
King  Josiah,  who  ascended  the  throne  when  eight  years 
of  age,  determined,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign, 
to  repair  the  temple  of  Yahweh.  The  supervision  of  the 
work  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  of  which 
Hilkiah,  the  chief  priest,  and  Shaphan,  the  king's  secre- 
tary, were  members.  One  day  Hilkiah  reported  to 
Shaphan :  "I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house 
of  Yahweh."  He  gave  the  book  to  Shaphan,  who  read 
it  and  reported  the  find  to  the  king.  When,  at  his  request, 
the  book  was  read  before  the  king,  he  was  so  deeply  im- 
pressed with  the  nature  of  the  contents  that  he  sent 
Hilkiah,  Shaphan,  and  others  to  inquire  of  Yahweh  "con- 
cerning the  words  of  the  book  that  is  found."  They 
consulted  the  prophetess  Huldah,  who  affirmed  that  the 
book  was  an  expression  of  the  will  of  Yahweh.  Where- 
upon the  book  was  read  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  and 
the  king  "made  a  covenant  before  Jehovah,  to  walk  after 
Jehovah,  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  and  his  testi- 
monies, and  his  statutes,  with  all  his  heart,  and  all  his 
soul,  to  confirm  the  words  of  this  covenant,  that  were 
written  in  this  book :  and  all  the  people  stood  to  the 
covenant."  In  accordance  with  this  vow,  and  on  the  basis 
of  the  newly  found  law  book,  Josiah  introduced  such 
far-reaching  reforms  in  Judah  that  the  narrator  could 

I8I 


i82  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

write  of  him :  "And  like  unto  him  was  there  no  king 
before  him,  that  turned  to  Jehovah  with  all  his  heart, 
and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with  all  his  might,  according  to 
all  the  law  of  Moses;  neither  after  him  arose  there  any- 
like  him." 

Was  the  Law  Book  of  Josiah  the  Pentateuch?  Until 
recent  times  the  law  book  of  Josiah  was  almost  univer- 
sally identified  with  the  Pentateuch,  which  was  thought  to 
have  been  completed  centuries  before  and  to  have  been 
deposited  by  the  side  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.^  In 
the  course  of  time  it  was  lost  sight  of,  but  finally,  in  the 
days  of  Josiah,  it  was  recovered  and  identified  as  the  Law 
of  Moses. 

Most  modern  scholars,  however,  believe  that  there  are 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  believing  that  the  book 
found  was  not  the  completed  Pentateuch :  ( i )  The  Penta- 
teuch as  a  whole  would  hardly  be  described  as  a  "book  of 
the  law,"  ^  much  less  as  a  "book  of  the  covenant,"  ^  a 
term  applicable  only  to  Exod.  20-23^  and  to  Deuter- 
onomy.^ (2)  A  book  as  large  as  the  Pentateuch  could 
not  have  been  handled  as  freely  as  is  suggested  in  the 
narrative.  It  was  read  at  least  twice  on  the  same  day;^ 
it  seems  to  have  been  no  special  hardship  for  the  people 
to  have  the  entire  book  read  to  them,  apparently  at  one 
service."^  (3)  If  the  book  found  had  been  the  entire 
Pentateuch,  it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  why  Josiah 
based  his  reforms  upon  one  small  portion — Deute-r- 
onomy.^  (4)  A  book  as  heterogeneous  in  contents  as  is 
the   Pentateuch   as   a   whole,   and   containing   romantic 


*Deut.  31.  9,  24-26.  ''Deut.S.2;  29. 1,21. 

*  2  Kings  22. 8,  *  2  Kings  22. 8, 10. 
'  2  Kings  23. 2.  ''2  Kings  23. 2. 

*  Exod.  24. 7.  *  See  below,  p.  185. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      183 

stories  like  the  patriarchal  narratives  would  hardly  have 
made  the  swift  and  terrible  impression  which  the  book 
found  by  Hilkiah  is  said  to  have  produced  upon  king 
and  people.^  (5)  Another  difficulty  is  suggested  in  the 
words  of  R.  Kittel :  "It  is  utterly  impossible  that  the 
whole  Pentateuch  should  have  vanished  without  leaving 
a  trace  of  its  existence.  The  older  and,  consequently, 
the  better  known  it  was,  the  greater  the  impossibility. 
Even  if  the  one  copy  deposited  in  the  temple  had  dis- 
appeared, there  must  always  have  been  others  in  exist- 
ence in  the  priestly  circles."  ^^ 

W.  H.  Green  seeks  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  last 
argument  by  directing  attention  to  the  fate  suffered  by 
the  code  of  Charlemagne  after  that  emperor's  death. 
The  situation  is  described  by  Sir  J.  Stephen  in  these 
words:  "When  the  barbarism  of  the  domestic  govern- 
ment— under  the  Carlovingian  dynasty — had  thus  suc- 
ceeded the  barbarism  of  the  government  of  the  state, 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  results  of  that  political  change 
was  the  disappearance  of  the  laws  and  institutions  by 
which  Charlemagne  had  endeavored  to  elevate  and  civilize 
his  subjects.  Before  the  close  of  the  century  in  which 
he  died  the  whole  body  of  his  laws  had  fallen  into  utter 
disuse  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  his  Gallic  do- 
minions. They  who  have  studied  the  charters,  laws,  and 
chronicles  of  the  later  Carlovingian  princes  most  dili- 
gently are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  they  indicate  either 
an  absolute  ignorance  or  an  entire  forgetfulness  of  the 
legislation  of  Charlemagne."  ^* 


*2  Kings  22.  II-13;  23.  3ff. 
^"History  of  the  Hebrews,  vol.  i,  p.  59. 

"  Lectures  on  the  History  of  France,  iv,  p.  94 ;   W.  H.  Green, 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  155,  156. 


i84  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

There  is,  however,  one  important  difiference  between 
the  two  cases,  which  destroys  the  parallehsm  and,  there- 
fore, makes  Green's  objection  of  no  effect.  The  succes- 
sors of  Charlemagne  make  no  claim  that  they  are  carrying 
out  the  principles  laid  down  by  that  wise  and  great 
emperor;  on  the  other  hand,  the  great  religious  leaders  of 
Israel  insist  that  they  are  simply  trying  to  put  into  prac- 
tice the  principles  of  Yahweh  religion,  as  proclaimed  from 
the  Exodus  on.  A  change  of  poHcy  on  the  part  of  the 
Prankish  kings  may  explain  their  disregard  of  Charle- 
magne's code  of  laws;  but  no  such  change  in  policy  is 
admitted  by  the  religious  leaders  of  Israel :  their  claims, 
teaching,  and  practice  all  imply  that  they  are  seeking  to 
recall  the  people  to  what  they  consider  the  policy  laid 
down  by  the  first  great  prophet.  And  it  remains  a  fact 
that  the  nature  of  these  claims  and  the  character  of  their 
teaching  and  practice  cannot  be  harmonized  with  the  view 
that  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  was  in  existence,  as  an 
embodiment  of  the  will  and  law  of  Yahweh,  at  or  before 
the  time  of  Josiah.  Modern  scholars,  therefore,  seem 
justified  in  claiming  that  the  Law  Book  of  Josiah  was 
not  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole.  ^^ 

The  Deuteronomic  Code  the  Law  Book  of  Josiah. 
If  the  law  book  of  Josiah  was  not  the  completed  Penta- 
teuch, can  its  extent  and  contents  be  determined?  The 
suggestion  has  been  made  that  it  was  "the  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  in  Exod.  20.  22  to  23.  33.  Now,  though  the 
law  book  of  Josiah  is  called  "the  book  of  the  covenant,"  ^^ 

"All  the  arguments  given  in  the  succeeding  pages  to  determine 
the  contents  and  extent  of  this  law  book  prove  at  the  same  time 
that  it  was  not  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

"2  Kings  23.  2,  21.  S.  A.  Fries,  in  Die  Gesetacsschrift  des  Koenigs 
Josia,  has  attempted  to  prove  that  the  law  book  of  Josiah  was 
identical  with  Exod.  34;  but  his  arguments  are  not  convincing. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      185 

there  is,  aside  from  other  considerations,  one  fundamental 
objection  to  identifying  it  with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
in  Exodus :  The  central  requirement  of  the  law  of  Josiah 
was  the  prohibition  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  the 
local  sanctuaries  and  the  centralization  of  public  worship 
in  one  place ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
specifically  permits  the  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries.^^  Evi- 
dently, the  latter  did  not  serve  as  the  basis  of  Josiah's 
reforms. 

There  is  only  one  collection  of  laws  in  the  Pentateuch 
that  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the  narrative  in 
2  Kings  22,  2^,  namely,  the  so-called  Deuteronomic 
Code.^^  The  reforms  carried  through  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Josiah  are  exactly  those  advocated  in  Deuter- 
onomy : 

2  Kings  23        Deuteronomy 
(i)  Centralization  of  worship 8-20  12.  2-6;  16.  2,  6,  7,  etc. 

(2)  Abolition  of  the  worship  of  the 

heavenly  bodies  4.5.  n  ^T-Z 

(3)  Condemnation    of    high    places, 

pillars,  Asherahs,  etc 4,5,14,15     16.21,22 

(4)  Prohibition    of    religious    pros- 

titutes    7  23. 17, 18 

(5)  Maintenance  of  priests  ejected 

from  the  local  sanctuaries...  8,9  18.8 

(6)  Abolition  of  Moloch  worship..   10  18.10 

(7)  Celebration  of  the  Passover  in 

a  new  style 21-23  16.  1-8 

(8)  Ejection  of  diviners  and  sooth- 

sayers    24  18. 10, 1 1 


"  Exod.  20.  24. 

"While  the  general  view  has  been  that  the  Law  Book  of  Josiah 
was  the  entire  Pentateuch,  its  identification  with  Deuteronomy  is 
not  an  entirely  new  discovery.  Chrysostom,  i  ad  Cor.,  Horn.  VII,  3, 
and  Jerome,  adv.  Jovin.  i,  5,  identified  the  law  book  of  Josiah  with 
Deuteronomy. 


i86  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Other  references  pointing  to  Deuteronomy  are:  (i) 
The  law  book  of  Josiah  contained  denunciations  and 
curses  such  as  are  found  in  Deut.  28;^*^  (2)  it  made 
mention  of  a  covenant  between  Yahweh  and  the  people  ;^'^ 
(3)  the  consulting  of  the  prophetess  Huldah^^  may  have 
been  suggested  by  Deut.  18.  18,  19. 

All  the  information,  therefore,  that  may  be  gathered 
from  the  biblical  narrative  itself  points  to  Deuteronomy 
in  some  form  as  the  law  book  underlying  the  reforms 
of  Josiah  in  B.  C.  621.  The  original  extent  of  the 
Deuteronomic  Code  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  It  may  be 
that  in  the  days  of  Josiah  it  included  only  chapters  12-19 
and  26,  plus  the  blessings  and  curses  in  chapter  28,  though 
the  latter,  perhaps,  in  simpler  form.^'' 

Origin  and  Date  of  the  Law  Book  of  Josiah.  When 
was  the  law  book  of  Josiah,  or  the  Deuteronomic  Code, 
written?  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  traditional  view  that 
Moses  wrote  it  along  with  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Naturally,  the  scholars  who  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  include  in  this  denial  Deuteronomy; 
and  most  of  them  are  agreed  that  the  book  was  written 
a  comparatively  short  time  before  its  discovery  by 
Hilkiah. 

There  are,  however,  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the 
exact  date.  Some  hold  that  it  was  written  during  the 
early  years  of  Josiah's  reign  ;2°  others  that  it  was  the 
product  of  Manasseh's  apostate  reign  f^  still  others  assign 

"2  Kings  22.  II,  13,  19. 

"  2  Kings  23.  2,  3,  21 ;  compare  Deut.  29.  i ;  26.  17-19,  etc. 
"2  Kings  22.  14. 
"  See,  further,  below,  p.  302. 

'"  Reuss,  Kuenen,  Cheyne,  Cornill,  Holzinger,  Carpenter  and  Har- 
ford-Battersby,  Kent,  etc. 

"  W.  R.  Smith,  Kittel,  Ryle,  Driver,  Kautzsch,  Steuernagel,  etc. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH     187 

it  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,^^  and  consider  it  the  basis 
of  the  reforms  instituted  by  him.^^  More  recently  the 
claim  has  been  put  forward  that  it  was  composed  during 
the  early  years  of  Solomon's  reign  and  was  deposited  by 
him  in  the  foundation  stone  of  the  temple,  where  it  re- 
mained hidden  until  its  accidental  discovery  in  the  days 
of  Josiah.^^ 

The  last  mentioned  view  grew  out  of  the  discovery  of 
the  ancient  Egyptian  custom  of  placing  the  law  of  a 
sanctuary  somewhere  into  the  building  at  the  time  of  its 
erection.  It  is  claimed  that  the  narrative  in  2  Kings  22, 
suggests  a  similar  custom  in  connection  with  the  temple 
of  Yahweh  in  Jerusalem.  Since,  now,  the  temple  in 
Jerusalem  was  erected  by  Solomon,  it  is  thought  that  he 
had  prepared  a  written  statement  of  the  law  of  the 
proposed  sanctuary,  in  order  that  it  might  be  placed  into 
the  foundation  wall  of  the  new  building.  That  law  is 
then  identified  with  the  Deuteronomic  Code.^^ 

Regarding  this  view,  it  may  be  noted  that  nowhere  in 
the  Old  Testament  is  there  any  suggestion  of  walling  a 
code  of  laws  into  the  foundation  walls  of  the  temple  or 
of  any  other  sanctuary;  nor  is  there  even  the  slightest 
indication  in  2  Kings  22.  5,  6,  that  in  the  course  of  the 
repairs  the  foundation  stone  or  the  foundation  walls  of 
the  temple  were  torn  out.  Moreover,  there  is  no  hint  in 
the  narrative  of  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple  that 
a  copy  of  the  Jerusalem  law  was  deposited  in  the  founda- 
tion wall.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sanctuary  may  well  have 


"Riehm,  Koenig,  Westphal,  Oettli,  G.  A.  Smith,  Sellin,  Fries. 
**2  Kings  18.  3-6. 

"  E.  Naville,  La  Decouverte  de  la  Loi,  passim. 
**i   Sam.   10.  25  and  Deut.  31.  26  are  urged  in  support  of  the 
view  that  the  custom  was  known  in  Israel. 


1 88  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

been  considered  the  proper  place  for  the  preservation  of 
official  documents,  including  law  codes,  because,  being  a 
holy  place,  it  would  be  a  safe  place.  Hence,  there  is  noth- 
ing inherently  impossible  or  improbable  in  the  view  that  a 
copy  of  the  law  of  Israel,  whatever  its  contents  may  have 
been,  was  deposited  by  Solomon  in  the  new  temple  of 
Yahweh.  However,  there  are,  in  addition  to  the  reasons 
for  a  later  date  given  below,  two  considerations  which 
make  the  composition  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code  in  the 
days  of  Solomon  or  under  his  direction  highly  improb- 
able: (i)  his  utter  disregard  of  the  prohibition  of 
polygamy,^^  and  (2)  a  similar  disregard  on  his  part  of 
the  law  against  the  multiplication  of  horses. ^'^  It  is  much 
more  probable  that  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
was  familiar  with  the  disastrous  results  of  Solomon's 
reign,  and  formulated  the  laws  in  Deut.  17.  14-20  with 
his  conduct  in  mind. 

The  facts  in  the  case  point  strongly  to  the  eighth  or 
seventh  century  as  the  time  when  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
was  formed  :^^ 

(i)  The  differences  between  Deuteronomy  and  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  suggest  a  period  considerably  re- 
moved from  the  conquest;  they  presuppose  a  decided 
change  in  the  social  condition  of  the  people. ^^ 

(2)  The  law  of  the  kingdom^^  is  colored  by  reminis- 


^' Compare  l  Kings  li.  1-3  with  Deut.  17.  17. 

"Compare  1  Kings  10.  28  with  Deut.  17.  16. 

^The  arguments  here  presented  are  chiefly  those  of  Driver, 
Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  Syff.; 
Commentary  on  Deuteronomy,  pp.  xlvfif. 

^°  For  the  conditions  reflected  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  see 
below,  pp.  28iff. 

*"  Deut.  17. 14-20. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      189 

cences  of  Solomon's  reign.  This  does  not  mean  that 
Moses  may  not  have  made  provision  for  the  estabHsh- 
ment  of  a  monarchy  in  Israel,  but  simply  that  the  form 
and  character  of  the  provision  in  Deuteronomy  bears 
traces  of  a  later  date. 

(3)  The  forms  of  idolatry  alluded  to,  especially  the 
worship  of  the  "host  of  heaven,"  ^^  point  to  the  middle 
period  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy.  True,  the  worship  of 
Sun  and  Moon  is  very  ancient,  and  was  known  in  the 
territory  through  which  the  Hebrew  tribes  passed  and 
in  which  they  settled,  as  may  be  seen  from  place  names 
preserved  in  the  narratives;^-  but  the  Old  Testament 
references  to  the  "host  of  heaven"  are  all  relatively  late.^^ 
It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  the  contact  with  Assyria 
during  the  eighth  century  that  led  to  the  prevalence  of 
this  form  of  idolatry.^^ 

(4)  The  earlier  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah, 
show  no  certain  traces  of  the  influence  of  Deuteronomy. 
It  is  altogether  otherwise  with  later  writers.  Jeremiah 
exhibits  marks  of  it  on  almost  every  page,  and  Ezekiel 
and  Isaiah,  4off.,  give  abundant  evidence  of  it.  A  date 
for  Deuteronomy  between  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  would 
account  for  these  facts. 

(5)  The  language  and  style  of  Deuteronomy,  clear  and 
flowing,  free  from  archaisms,  but  purer  than  that  of 
Jeremiah,  would  suit  the  same  period.  Dillmann  is  un- 
doubtedly right  when  he  says:  "The  style  of  Deuter- 
onomy implies  a  long  development  of  the  art  of  public 


"Deut.  4.  19;  17.3. 

'"  Beth-shemesh,  Sinai,  Wilderness  of  Sin;  Shemesh  =  Shamash, 
the  Sun-god,  Sin,  the  Moon-god. 
^2  Kings  17.  16;  21.  3,  5,  etc. 
**  Compare  2  Kings  2^.  12  with  16.  18. 


190  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

oratory,  and  is  not  of  a  character  to  belong  to  the  first  age 
of  Israelitish  literature."  ^^ 

(6)  Deut.  i6.  22  contains  the  prohibition:  "Neither 
shalt  thou  set  thee  up  a  pillar;  which  Jehovah  thy  God 
hateth."  If  Isaiah  had  known  of  that  law — and  if  it  had 
been  in  existence  ignorance  on  his  part  would  be  difficult 
to  explain — he  would  hardly  have  adopted  the  pillar  as  a 
symbol  of  the  conversion  of  Egypt.^^ 

(7)  The  terms  of  Deut.  17.  8-13;  19.  17,  in  which  the 
constitution  of  the  supreme  tribunal  is  not  prescribed  but 
represented  as  already  known,  seem  to  presuppose  the 
existence  of  the  judicial  system  said  to  have  been  insti- 
tuted by  Jehoshaphat.^' 

All  the  evidence  presented  thus  far  appears  to  point  to 
the  closing  years  of  the  eighth  or  to  the  seventh  century 
as  the  most  probable  age  of  Deuteronomy.  Can  the  date 
be  determined  more  definitely?  Now,  it  may  be  admitted 
that  "the  data  showing  Deuteronomy  to  be  post-Mosaic 
are  more  definite  and  distinct  than  those  which  we 
possess  for  fixing  the  precise  part  of  the  century  before 
B.  C.  621  to  which  it  is  to  be  assigned"  ;^^  nevertheless, 
the  subject  is  of  sufficient  interest  and  importance  to 
warrant  at  least  an  attempt  to  determine  the  date  more 
exactly. 

Many  scholars  hold  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  by 
a  contemporary  of  Josiah,  with  or  without  the  knowledge 
of  Hilkiah;  that  it  represents  a  well-wrought-out  com- 
promise between  priests  and  prophets ;  and  that  the  story 


^^  Humeri,  Deuteronomium,  Josua,  p.  611. 
'*Isa.  19.  19. 
''2  Chron.  19.  8-1 1. 

**  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  87. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      191 

of  the  finding  of  the  law  book  in  the  temple  was  devised 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  king  into  more  active 
sympathy  with  the  reform  movement  planned  by  the 
author  and  his  associates.  This  view  is  open  to  the  fol- 
lowing criticisms :  ( i )  It  is  not  in  accord  with  the  view 
of  the  narrator  of  Josiah's  reforms,  who  cannot  have 
lived  very  long  after  the  events  recorded  took  place,  and 
may  have  been  an  eyewitness,  (2)  Deuteronomy  con- 
tains some  laws  which  cannot  be  explained  as  a  compro- 
mise entered  into  by  the  priests  in  Jerusalem.  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  they  would  indorse  the  provision 
in  18.  7,  which  places  the  Levites  at  the  local  sanctuaries 
on  an  equality  with  those  serving  in  the  temple  in  Jeru- 
salem. Indeed,  it  may  have  been  due  to  the  opposition  of 
the  Jerusalem  priests  that  the  law  was  not  carried  out  by 
Josiah.^^  Moreover,  there  are  numerous  laws  that  appear 
out  of  place  in  a  code  representing  primarily  a  com- 
promise between  prophets  and  priests.^^^  Deuteronomy 
reveals  a  wider  outlook;  it  is  interested  in  all  things 
affecting  the  welfare  of  the  people.  (3)  If  Deuteronomy 
originated  as  claimed,  why  was  it  that  the  advocates  of 
the  reform  movement  waited  until  the  eighteenth  year 
of  Josiah's  reign?  He  appears  to  have  been  in  sympathy 
with  Yahweh  religion  from  the  very  beginning,*^  and  it 
would  be  only  natural  to  suppose  that  it  might  be  easier 
to  convince  a  boy  than  a  man.  (4)  On  the  theory  that 
Deuteronomy  was  a  contemporary  production  it  would 
be  difficult  to  explain  why  Josiah  responded  so  readily 
to  the  book  presented  to  him,  a  book  full  of  denuncia- 


*•  2  Kings  23.  9. 

*°  Chapter  20;  22.  8,  10;  25.  4,  etc.    Some  of  these  laws,  however, 
may  be  later  additions  to  the  original  code. 

"2  Chron.  34.  3;  compare  also  2  Kings  22.  11-13. 


192  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

tions  affecting  him,  his  house,  and  his  people.  Why  did 
he  not  feel  free  to  disregard  or  even  destroy  it  ?  ^^  May 
his  attitude  not  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the  manner 
of  the  finding  of  the  book  convinced  him  that  he  was  face 
to  face  with  a  relatively  ancient  sacred  book? 

Whatever,  therefore,  the  date  of  the  book  may  be, 
unless  the  biblical  narrative  is  entirely  disregarded,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  book  had  been  lost  and  recovered  as 
related  in  2  Kings  22.  Moreover,  "there  is  force  in  the 
argument  that  it  could  hardly  have  been  lost  during  the 
early  years  of  Josiah,  .  .  .  while  this  might  easily  have 
happened  during  the  heathen  reaction  under  Manasseh." 
No  doubt  a  date  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  is  in  more 
perfect  accord  with  the  biblical  story.  "A  man  of  pro- 
phetic character,"  says  Kittel,  "faithful  to  Yahweh, 
stirred  by  Hezekiah's  attempted  reform  and  by  Manas- 
seh's  idolatry,  wrote  the  book  in  the  reign  of  the  latter. 
The  troubles  of  the  time  and  the  hostile  disposition  of 
the  king  deterred  him  from  publishing  it.  He  had  no 
wish  to  risk  his  own  safety  and  the  usefulness  of  his 
work.  Hoping  for  better  days,  he  concealed  it  in  the 
temple.  The  author  may  not  have  survived  the  long 
reign  of  Manasseh,  or  he  would  soon  have  come  forward 
with  his  work  after  Josiah's  accession.  It  appears  to 
have  been  thus  forgotten  and  only  found  by  a  fortunate 
accident  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah.  Hilkiah  and 
Shaphan  are  thus  exculpated  from  every  kind  of  dis- 
ingenuousness."  '^^ 

The  objections  raised  against  the  view  that  Deuter- 
onomy was  written  by  a  contemporary  of  Josiah  do  not 
hold  here.    There  would  be  time  for  the  loss  of  the  book 


*^  Compare  Jer.  36.  23ff. 

*^  History  of  the  Hebrews,  vol.  i,  p.  64. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      193 

and  its  recovery,  in  accord  with  the  narrative  in  2  Kings 
22,  Moreover,  the  reign  of  Manasseh  furnished  a  suit- 
able occasion :  the  reactionary  poHcy  of  the  king  silenced 
the  preacher-prophets;  hence  if  they  desired  to  continue 
their  teaching,  they  must  do  so  by  the  use  of  the  pen. 
The  spirit  and  contents  of  the  book  also  would  be  ac- 
counted for  if  it  had  been  written  at  that  time.  The 
failure  of  the  eighth  century  prophets  to  accomplish  per- 
manent results  must  have  led  many  prophetic  souls  to 
think  that,  perhaps,  their  predecessors  had  gone  too  far 
in  their  disregard  of  the  forms  and  institutions  that 
meant  so  much  to  the  religious  life  of  the  common  people. 
They  concluded  that  the  time  to  discard  these  forms  had 
not  yet  arrived;  it  would  be  better  to  retain  them  and 
to  give  them  a  new  and  higher  significance,  in  accord 
with  the  spiritual  and  ethical  ideals  of  the  eighth-century 
prophets.  This  new  ideal  of  religion  found  expression 
in  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  Deuteronomy,  therefore,  is, 
in  a  sense,  a  compromise,  fostered  by  the  prophets, 
between  the  lofty  spiritual  teaching  of  the  eighth-century 
prophets  and  the  insistence  on  religious  forms  and  insti- 
tutions advocated  by  the  priests. 

Against  this  view  also  some  objections  have  been 
urged :  ( I )  The  expression  "the  book  of  the  law"  is  said 
to  imply  that  Hilkiah  knew  of  the  previous  existence  of 
a  law  book,  though  he  did  not  know  its  contents;  and 
(2)  the  tone  of  the  entire  Deuteronomic  legislation  is 
said  to  preclude  the  idea  that  it  was  a  private  production ; 
evidently,  it  was  an  official  work,  meant  to  regulate  the 
conduct  of  the  entire  people.^"*  (3)  It  is  further  sug- 
gested that,  if  the  book  had  been  written  in  Manasseh's 
reign,  it  would  show  traces  of  the  opposition  and  perse- 
**  E.  Sellin,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  41. 


194  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

cution  to  which  the  faithful  Israehtes  were  then  ex- 
posed."*^ 

It  is  thought  that  these  difficulties  are  removed  by 
assigning  the  book  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  inter- 
preting it  as  the  basis  of  Hezekiah's  reforms, ■^^  as  subse- 
quently it  became  the  basis  of  Josiah's  reforms.  Koenig 
believes  that  it  originated  among  the  faithful  Yahweh 
priests  in  Jerusalem,  under  the  influence  of  the  terrible 
calamity  that  fell  upon  the  idolatrous  and  wicked  northern 
kingdom  in  B.  C.  722,  that  it  served  as  the  basis  of  the 
reforms  of  Hezekiah,  that  it  was  lost  sight  of  during 
the  reactionary  reign  of  Manasseh,  and  was  found  again 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  as  described  in  2  Kings  22.^"^ 
Sellin  finds  support  for  the  view  that  Deuteronomy  was 
the  law  book  underlying  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  in  the 
ancient  Egyptian  custom,  which  is  thought  by  Naville 
and  others  to  favor  a  date  during  the  reign  of  Solomon.^^ 
From  this  custom  and  the  statements  in  Deut.  31.  26  and 
I  Sam.  10.  25  he  draws  the  inference  that  at  the  time  of 
the  last  dedication  of  the  temple  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  Law — which  was  the  dedication  under  Hezekiah 
— a  copy  of  the  law  of  the  sanctuary  was  placed  into 
the  foundation  walls.  The  copy  retained  by  the  priests 
was  destroyed  during  the  bloody  reign  of  Manasseh. 
The  only  remaining  copy  was  that  in  the  foundation 
walls,  which  was  found  in  the  course  of  the  repairs 
ordered  by  Josiah  in  B.  C.  621. 

If  Deuteronomy  is  dated  before  B.  C.   700,  the  ap- 


"G.  A.  Smith,  Critical  Review,  1895,  pp.  341S. 
*•  Described  in  2  Kings  18.  3-5. 

"  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  pp.  218,  219;  Geschichte  der 
alttestamentlichen  Religion,  pp.  360,  361, 
**  See  above,  p.  187. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      195 

parent  disregard  of  Deut.  18.  6,  7  at  the  time  of  Josiah's 
reform,^®  may  be  explained  as  due  to  a  change  in  condi- 
tions during  the  intervening  century.  In  the  eighth  cen- 
tury the  worship  at  the  local  sanctuaries  was,  in  name  at 
least,  worship  of  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel;  hence,  when 
Deuteronomy  was  written  the  priests  at  the  local  sanc- 
tuaries could  be  treated  as  priests  of  the  legitimate  Yah- 
weh religion.  When,  however,  during  the  apostate  reign 
of  Manasseh,  all  kinds  of  heathen  practices  were  intro- 
duced there,  in  which  the  priests  participated,  the  same 
consideration  could  no  longer  be  shown  to  them. 

It  does  not  seem  possible  to  determine  exactly  and 
absolutely  the  date  of  Deuteronomy.  The  choice  seems 
to  lie  between  the  dark  days  of  Manasseh' s  reign  and 
the  years  immediately  preceding  the  reforms  of  Heze- 
kiah.  The  objections  raised  against  the  former  date 
possess  little  weight,  nor  are  the  arguments  in  favor  of 
the  latter  date  conclusive.  On  the  contrary,  if  Deuter- 
onomy had  been  the  basis  of  Hezekiah's  reform,  it  would 
be  very  singular  that  no  appeal  was  made  by  him  to  the 
book  sanctioning  his  reforms,  as  was  done  a  century 
later  by  Josiah.  It,  surely,  is  only  natural  to  suppose 
that,  had  the  book  been  in  existence,  the  king  would  have 
sought  to  reenforce  his  efforts  by  such  an  appeal.  On 
the  whole,  therefore,  it  seems  preferable  to  date  the  book 
subsequently  to  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah,  and  to  regard 
the  latter  as  giving  a  strong  impulse  to  the  movement 
which  found  its  culmination  and  literary  expression  in 
the  Deuteronomic  Code. 

In  either  case  the  author,  be  he  priest  or  prophet,  was 
influenced  by  the  lofty  ideals  of  the  eighth-century 
prophets ;  for  the  spirit  of  the  entire  book  is  preeminently 

*"  2  Kings  23.  9. 


196  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

prophetic.  Service  is  ever  placed  above  sacrifice.  To 
love  and  to  serve  Yahweh  and  one's  fellows  with  all  the 
heart  and  soul  is  its  supreme  demand.  The  detailed  laws 
are  presented  simply  as  the  means  by  which  this  love 
may  find  concrete  expression. 

The  Permanent  Significance  of  Deuteronomy.  "Deu- 
teronomy," says  J.  E.  McFadyen,  "is  one  of  the  epoch- 
making  books  of  the  world."  ^"  Does  it  lose  this  position 
if  it  can  be  shown  that  it  is  not  the  work  of  Moses  but  of 
a  prophetic  mind  in  the  eighth  or  seventh  century  B.  C.  ? 
The  claim  has  been  made  that  if  the  book  was  not  written 
by  Moses,  it  is  nothing  but  a  forgery,  because  the  author 
sought  recognition  and  authority  for  his  book  by  hiding 
behind  the  name  of  Moses ;  and  that  a  book  thus  palmed 
off  does  not  deserve  the  respect  and  confidence  of  intel- 
ligent people.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to 
remember  that  the  value  and  significance  of  a  book  does 
not  depend  upon  its  authorship  or  literary  history,  but 
upon  its  inherent  quality.  It  is  not  difficult,  therefore,  to 
imagine  that  a  book  the  author  of  which  seeks  to  secure 
recognition  for  it  by  hiding  behind  the  name  of  another 
man  might  contain  teaching  of  the  greatest  spiritual  and 
ethical  value. 

In  the  case  of  Deuteronomy,  however,  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind,  that  the  book  never  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  Moses;  the  only  claim  it  makes  is  that  it 
contains  the  parting  message  of  the  great  leader,  which 
is  something  entirely  different.  The  author  seems  to  keep 
himself  distinct  from  Moses;  he  introduces  the  latter  as 
speaking  and  purports  to  give  the  contents  of  his  farewell 
address.  In  other  words,  the  author  adopts  a  well-known 
ancient  literary  custom,  followed  again  and  again  in  the 

^Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  51. 


THE  LAW  BOOK  OF  KING  JOSIAH      197 

historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  and  by  extra-biblical  writers,  namely,  the 
custom  of  placing  in  the  mouths  of  their  heroes  utter- 
ances which,  the  authors  believe,  their  characters  might 
have  uttered  at  a  particular  time  or  under  particular  cir- 
cumstances, Thucydides,  a  very  cautious  and  painstaking 
historian  of  antiquity,  describes  the  principle  adopted  by 
himself  in  these  words :  "As  to  the  various  speeches  made 
on  the  eve  of  the  war  or  in  its  course,  I  have  found  it 
difficult  to  retain  a  memory  of  the  precise  words  which  I 
heard  spoken ;  and  so  it  was  with  those  who  brought  me 
reports.  But  I  have  made  the  persons  say  what  it  seemed 
to  me  most  opportune  for  them  to  say  in  view  of  each 
situation;  at  the  same  time  I  have  adhered  as  closely  as 
possible  to  the  general  sense  of  what  was  actually  said."  ^^ 
From  this  admission  it  would  seem  that  among  the 
ancients  "the  conditions  of  historical  veracity  were  satis- 
fied if  the  speech  represented  the  spirit  of  the  speaker." 
If,  then,  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  reproduced  the  spirit 
and  ideals  of  Moses,  he  observed  principles  of  literary 
composition  recognized  as  perfectly  sound  and  legitimate 
in  his  own  day. 

That  Deuteronomy  is  true  to  the  spirit  and  ideals  of 
Moses  no  serious  reader  can  doubt.  The  laws  of  Deuter- 
onomy are  not  the  author's  invention;  three  fourths  of 
them  are  reproduced  from  earlier  legislation;  the  others 
represent  an  attempt  to  apply  the  principles  embodied  in 
the  older  laws  to  the  needs  and  conditions  of  the  author's 
age.  These  principles,  in  the  last  analysis,  go  back  to  the 
first  great  prophet  of  Israel,  Moses  ;^^  hence  the  charge 
of  fraud  and  forgery  is  entirely  unwarranted.     Deuter- 

"  1, 22. 

**  See  above,  p.  90. 


198  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

onomy,  therefore,  is  rightly  described  as  "the  prophetic 
reformulation,  and  adaptation  to  new  needs,  of  an  older 
legislation,"  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  upon  principles 
laid  down  by  him.  Moreover,  there  may  have  been  a 
tradition  in  Israel,  oral  or  written,  of  a  final  legislative 
address  delivered  by  Moses  before  his  death ;  upon  which 
traditional  basis  the  author  may  have  developed  the 
Deuteronomic  Code. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  admirably  stated 
by  Driver  in  these  suggestive  words :  "The  bulk  of  the 
laws  contained  in  Deuteronomy  is  undoubtedly  far  more 
ancient  than  the  time  of  the  author  himself :  and  in  deal- 
ing with  them  as  he  has  done,  in  combining  them  into  a 
manual  for  the  guidance  of  the  people  and  providing  them 
with  hortatory  introductions  and  comments,  conceived  in 
the  spirit  of  Moses  himself,  he  cannot  ...  be  held  to 
be  guilty  of  dishonesty  or  literary  fraud.  There  is 
nothing  in  Deuteronomy  implying  any  interested  or  dis- 
honest motive  on  the  part  of  the  (post-Mosaic)  author: 
and  this  being  so,  its  moral  and  spiritual  greatness  re- 
mains unimpaired ;  its  inspired  authorship  is  in  no  respect 
less  than  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  which  happens  to  be  anonymous."  ^^ 


'  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  91. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

I.    The  Historical  Situation  Reflected 


CHAPTER  XIII 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

I.    The  Historical  Situation  Reflected 

Several  times  in  .the  preceding  chapters  dates  have 
been  suggested  for  the  documents  used  in  the  composition 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  no  evidence  in  support  of  these 
suggestions  has  as  yet  been  presented.  In  this  chapter 
and  in  the  chapters  immediately  following  this  lack  is 
supplied :  the  attempt  is  made  to  determine  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  the  Pentateuchal  documents,  to  fix,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  their  dates,  and  to  trace  the  process  of 
compilation,  culminating  in  the  completed  Pentateuch. 

As  in  the  preceding  discussions,  the  evidence  may  be 
presented  in  the  form  of  a  cumulative  argument,  which 
does  not  form  "a  chain  which  is  worthless  if  one  link 
is  broken,"  but  is,  rather,  "like  an  array  of  pillars  sup- 
porting a  roof — the  roof  will  stand,  even  though  some 
of  the  pillars  are  weak  or  rotten":  i.  The  historical 
situation  reflected  in  the  documents.  2.  The  relation  of 
the  Pentateuchal  documents  to  other  Old  Testament  writ- 
ings. 3.  Peculiarities  of  vocabulary  and  style.  4.  The 
mutual  relation  of  the  Pentateuchal  documents.^ 


^  This  outline,  but  not  the  discussion,  is  taken  in  substance  from 
W.  H.  Bennett  and  W.  E.  Adeney,  A  Biblical  Introduction,  pp.  2>2>^- 
Though  the  arrangement  may  necessitate  some  repetition,  it  makes 
possible  a  logical  discussion,  and  for  that  reason  is  here  adopted. 

201 


202  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  argument  based  upon  the  historical  situation 
reflected  in  the  Pentateuchal  documents  may  be  considered 
first.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant^  was  at  one  time  a  part 
of  the  combined  JE,  and  probably,  before  the  combina- 
tion was  made,  of  the  document  E.  If,  therefore,  the 
date  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  can  be  fixed,  the  earliest 
possible  date  of  the  combination  of  J  and  E,  or  even  the 
earliest  possible  date  of  E  can  be  determined. 

The  biblical  record  assigns  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
to  the  period  spent  by  Israel  before  Mount  Sinai,^  but 
internal  evidence  seems  to  point  to  a  later  date : 

I.  The  laws  in  the  Code  are  addressed  not  to  nomads 
dwelling  in  tents  but  to  agriculturists  living  in  houses; 
the  people  are  spoken  of  as  having  fields  and  vineyards 
and  standing  grain ;  mention  is  made  of  their  fruits  and 
the  outflow  of  their  presses;  regulations  are  given  con- 
cerning the  tilling  of  the  soil,  and  the  observance  of  the 
agricultural  feasts  of  harvest  and  of  ingathering  is  pre- 
scribed.'* Thus  it  would  seem  that  the  conditions  reflected 
presuppose  at  least  the  conquest,  and  that  the  code  did  not 
originate  prior  to  the  age  of  the  Judges;  and  there  are 
many  scholars  who  believe  that  the  state  of  society  pre- 
supposed is  more  orderly  than,  judging  from  statements 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  it  was  during  that  age ;  hence  they 
prefer  to  assign  it  to  the  period  of  the  early  monarchy. 
This  does  not  involve  a  denial  of  the  presence  of  earlier 
elements ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  may 
be  described  as  a  collection  of  Mosaic  decisions,  modified 
and  expanded  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  people  subse- 
quently to  the  settlement  in  Canaan. 


*  Exod.  20.  22  to  23.  33. 

*  Exod.  20. 18. 

*  Exod.  22.  5,  6,  29 ;  23.  loff. ;  16,  etc. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  203 

2.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  recognizes  and  sanctions 
the  multipHcity  of  altars  and  sanctuaries.  The  command 
in  Exodus  20.  24  provides  for  the  building  of  altars  and 
the  offering  of  sacrifice  "in  every  place  where  I  record 
my  name."  The  reference  seems  to  be  to  localities  like 
Bethel,^  Beersheba,^  Gilgal,'^  and  others  that  were  conse- 
crated by  the  appearance  of  Yahweh  to  the  patriarchs  or 
to  the  people  during  their  early  history.  Moreover,  there 
are  some  regulations  which  could  not  be  carried  out 
unless  sanctuaries  were  scattered  throughout  the  land.^ 

These  regulations  reflect  not  only  the  practices  of  the 
patriarchs  but  also  the  conditions  prevailing,  according 
to  the  biblical  records  themselves,  during  the  period  of 
the  Judges  and  of  the  early  kings.  Thus,  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges  sacrifices  were  offered  at  Shiloh,® 
Bochim,^*^  and  Bethel  ;^^  Samuel  offered  sacrifice  at 
Ramah^^  and  at  Mizpah;^^  other  places  of  sacrifice  in 
his  day  were  a  city  in  the  land  of  Zuph^*  and  Gilgal.^^ 
Saul  offered  a  burnt-offering  at  GilgaP*^  and  built  an 
altar  at  Aijalon;^'^  and  during  the  period  of  the  United 
Kingdom  sacrifice  is  said  to  have  been  offered  at  Beth- 
lehem,^^ Hebron, ^^  and  Gibeon.^"  Even  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  temple,  sacrifices  continued  to  be  offered  in 
places  outside  of  Jerusalem.  Elijah  repaired  an  altar  of 
Yahweh  on  Mount  Carmel,^^  and  he  makes  complaint 


^  Gen.  28.  16-19.  "  I  Sam.  9.  12. 

"Gen.  21.  33.  '"i  Sam.  11.  15. 

'  Josh.  4.  20-24.  "  I  Sam.  13.  9. 

*For  example,  Exod.  21.  13,  14.      "  i  Sam.  14.  35. 

•  Judg.  21.  19;  I  Sam.  i.  4.  "  i  Sam.  20.  28,  29. 

'"Judg.  2.  5.  "2  Sam.  15.  7. 

"  Judg.  20.  26.  "  I  Kings  3.  4. 

"  I  Sam.  7.  17.  "  I  Kings  18.  30. 
"  I  Sam.  7.  9. 


204  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

that  "the  people  of  Israel  have  thrown  down  the  altars  of 
Jehovah."  ^^  Even  some  of  the  pious  kings,  who  are 
said  to  have  done  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of 
Yahweh,  made  no  effort  to  abolish  the  "high  places,"  ^* 
and  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea  attacked  the  local 
sanctuaries  only  because  the  Yahweh  worship  practiced 
there  had  become  so  mixed  with  Canaanite  elements  that 
in  reality  it  was  nothing  more  than  the  worship  of  local 
Baals.  Down  toward  the  close  of  the  eighth  century 
there  seems  to  have  been  no  serious  attempt  at  limiting 
the  public  worship  of  Yahweh  to  one  place,  though  the 
eighth-century  prophets  began  to  notice  conditions  at  the 
local  sanctuaries  which  ultimately  might  lead  to  their 
abolition. 

3.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  knows  no  elaborate 
ritual  or  official  priesthood.  This  again  reflects  conditions 
during  the  earlier  periods  of  Hebrew  history.  During 
the  period  of  the  Judges  and  of  the  early  monarchy  the 
offering  of  sacrifice  was  not  confined  to  the  priests.  The 
heads  of  families  were  permitted  to  offer  sacrifice;^* 
Gideon  brought  a  burnt-offering  at  the  command  of 
Yahweh,^^  and  the  same  was  done  by  king  SauP^  and 
king  Solomon.^^  Neither  Samuel,  a  prophet, ^^  nor 
Elijah,  another  prophet,-^  appears  to  have  been  acquainted 
with  any  provision  limiting  the  offering  of  sacrifice  to 


"  I  Kings  19.  14. 

"Joash,  2  Kings   12.  2,  3;  Amaziah,   14.  3,  4;   Uzziah,   15.  3,  4; 
Jotham,   15.  34,  35. 

"  Manoah,  Judg.  13.  19 ;  Jesse,  i  Sam.  20.  29. 

'^Judg.  6.  26,  27. 

"  I  Sam.  14.  35. 

"  I  Kings  3.  4- 

'*  I  Sam.  7.  17. 

*•  I  Kings  18.  30ff. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  205 

priests  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Moreover,  during  these 
early  centuries  the  ritual  seems  to  have  been  the  simplest 
imaginable.  On  the  other  hand,  by  the  middle  of  the 
eighth  century  it  had  become  so  complex  and  was  so 
overemphasized  by  priests  and  people  that  the  prophets 
felt  impelled  to  protest  against  the  prevailing  formalism.^^ 

All  the  available  evidence  goes  to  show  that  the  period 
preceding  the  seventh  century  offers  the  most  suitable 
background  for  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  that  it 
must  have  been  written  before  B.  C.  700.  But  from  the 
attitude  of  the  eighth-century  prophets  toward  the  local 
sanctuaries  it  may  further  be  inferred  that  a  law  sanction- 
ing these  could  not  have  been  formulated  among  the 
religious  leaders  of  their  day.  The  latest  possible  date, 
therefore,  for  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  would  be  B.  C. 
750.  In  all  probability,  however,  it  belongs  to  a  much 
earlier  age.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  in  the  laws  it 
contains  which  would  make  it  impossible  to  assign  the 
code,  aside  from  minor  modifications,  to  the  age  of  the 
Judges;  and  in  all  essentials  it  may  go  back  to  Mosaic 
decisions,  which  were  adapted  to  later  conditions  and, 
when  collected  and  codified,  served  as  a  legal  guide  until 
its  place  was  taken  by  a  more  advanced  code  of  laws. 

The  historical  documents  J  and  E,  of  which  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  at  one  time  formed  a  part,  were  written 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  same  early  age;  hence  they 
too  must  be  placed  earlier  than  B.  C.  750. 

A  different  situation  is  presupposed  in  D,  As  has  been 
stated  in  another  connection,^ ^  two  characteristic  points 
in  the  legislation  of  D  are :  ( i )  the  limitation  of  public 
worship  to  a  single  sanctuary,  which  thus  becomes  the 

*'Amos  5.  21-23;  Isa.  i.  10-15,  etc. 
"  See  above,  pp.  159,  160. 


2o6    THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

only  legitimate  dwelling  place  of  Yahweh;  (2)  the  limi- 
tation of  the  priesthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  with  the 
recognition  of  the  right  of  every  Levite  to  become  a 
priest. 

The  practice  in  Israel  prior  to  B.  C.  750  is  not  in  accord 
with  these  provisions;  even  the  eighth-century  prophets 
seem  to  have  been  unconscious  of  their  existence.  But 
Amos,^2  Hosea,-''^  and  Micah^*  attacked  the  high  places 
because  of  the  immorality  and  superstition  connected  with 
the  worship  there.  Perhaps  as  a  result  of  prophetic 
teaching,^^  Hezekiah  made  an  attempt,  toward  the  close 
of  the  century,  to  purify  the  worship  in  the  temple  and 
to  break  down  the  high  places.^^  Moreover,  Isaiah's 
insistence  on  the  inviolability  of  Zion  and  the  consequent 
deliverance  of  Jerusalem  from  the  attack  of  Senna- 
cherib,^^ greatly  increased  the  prestige  of  the  temple. 
Thus  from  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  on  there 
came  to  be  an  evergrowing  conviction,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  the  local  sanctuaries  was 
proving  a  hindrance  to  pure  religion  and,  on  the  other, 
that  Yahweh  was  taking  a  special  interest  in  the  temple 
on  Mount  Zion,  where  the  worship  may  have  been  purer 
than  at  the  local  shrines. 

This  conviction  found  expression  in  the  legislation  of 
D,  which  made  its  first  public  appearance  in  B.  C.  621, 
when  it  served  as  the  basis  of  Josiah's  reforms.^^  With 
the  northern  kingdom  gone,  the  centralization  of  worship 


*^Amos  4.  4,  5. 

»  Hos.  10.  8. 

•^  Mic.  I.  5,  6. 

•'Jer.  26.  18,  19. 

'"2  Kings  18.  3-5- 

"2  Kings  19.  20-37;  Isa.  37.  2-38. 

"See  above,  pp.  181  flf. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  207 

could  be  carried  out  much  more  easily  than  would  have 
been  possible  a  century  before.  The  background  reflected 
in  D,  therefore,  is  the  religious  movement  inspired  by 
the  eighth-century  prophets  and  culminating  in  the  re- 
forms instituted  by  King  Josiah. 

In  D  the  centralization  of  worship  is  insisted  upon  as 
something  to  be  reached  but  not  yet  attained ;  in  P  it  is 
presupposed  as  a  universally  accepted  principle  of  Yahweh 
worship.  This  would  seem  to  point  to  a  later  date  for  P. 
The  reforms  of  Josiah  were  short-lived ;  his  successors 
reverted  to  the  religious  practices  of  Manasseh,^^  and 
their  political  blunders  led  to  the  downfall  of  the  southern 
kingdom  in  B.  C.  586.  Many  of  the  Jews  who  were 
carried  into  exile  apostatized;  those  who  remained  loyal 
to  the  religion  of  their  fathers  returned  to  their  former 
home  as  soon  as  opportunity  offered.  The  returned  exiles 
settled  in  or  near  Jerusalem,  where  they,  with  the  Jews 
who  had  been  left  behind,  worshiped  on  the  mountain 
of  Yahweh,  so  dear  to  former  generations,  which  hence- 
forth was  the  only  sanctuary  recognized  by  the  Jewish 
community.  This  postexilic  ideal  is  reflected  through- 
out P. 

Other  distinctive  features  of  P  are  the  limitation  of 
the  priesthood  to  the  house  of  Aaron,^*^  the  assignment 
of  the  menial  tasks  of  the  sanctuary  to  the  non-Aaronic 
Levites,^*  and  the  establishment  of  the  high  priesthood."*^ 
There  is  no  trace  of  any  distinction  between  priests  and 
Levites  in  D;*^  nor  is  such  distinction  suggested  in  the 


'2  Kings  23,  32ff. 
'Num.  18.  1-7. 
Num.  3.  3-10. 

'Exod.  28;  29.  1-9;  Lev.  21.  10-15,  etc. 
'18.  I ;  24.  8,  etc. 


2o8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

narrative  of  Josiah's  reforms  ;^^  nor  is  it  recognized  by 
the  contemporary  prophet  Jeremiah,^ ^  nor  in  any  other 
preexilic  document. 

The  first  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  priests  and 
other  Levites  is  the  priest-prophet  Ezekiel,  during  the 
exile.  In  chapter  44  he  lays  down  regulations  concerning 
the  new  temple  and  its  services.  From  verse  7  it  would 
seem  that  the  menial  tasks  of  the  sanctuary  had  been 
allowed  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  foreigners,  which  prac- 
tice, the  prophet  declares,  is  an  abomination  to  Yahweh, 
and  must  be  discontinued :  "No  foreigner,  uncircumcised 
in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  shall  enter  into  my 
sanctuary,  of  any  foreigners  that  are  among  the  children 
of  Israel."  ^^  This  is  followed  by  regulations  regarding 
the  practice  of  the  future :  "But  the  Levites  that  went  far 
from  me,  when  Israel  went  astray,  that  went  astray  from 
me  after  their  idols,  they  shall  bear  their  iniquity.  Yet 
they  shall  be  ministers  in  my  sanctuary,  having  oversight 
at  the  gates  of  the  house,  and  ministering  in  the  house : 
they  shall  slay  the  burnt-offering  and  the  sacrifice  for 
the  people,  and  they  shall  stand  before  them  to  minister 
unto  them.  Because  they  ministered  unto  them  before 
their  idols,  and  became  a  stumbling-block  of  iniquity  unto 
the  house  of  Israel;  therefore  have  I  lifted  up  my  hand 
against  them,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  and  they  shall  bear 
their  iniquity.  And  they  shall  not  come  near  unto  me, 
to  execute  the  office  of  priest  unto  me,  nor  to  come  near 
to  any  of  my  holy  things,  unto  the  things  that  are  most 
holy;  but  they  shall  bear  their  shame,  and  their  abomina- 
tions which  they  have  committed.    Yet  will  I  make  them 

"  2  Kings  23. 

"He   uses    the    expression    "the    priests    the    Levites,"    or    "the 
Levites  the  priests,"  33.  18,  21,  etc. 
"  Ezek.  44.  9. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  209 

keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  house,  for  all  the  service 
thereof,  and  for  all  that  shall  be  done  therein.  But  the 
priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  that  kept  the 
charge  of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of  Israel  went 
astray  from  me,  they  shall  come  near  to  me  to  minister 
unto  me;  and  they  shall  stand  before  me  to  offer  unto  me 
the  fat  and  the  blood,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah :  they  shall 
enter  into  my  sanctuary,  and  they  shall  come  near  to  my 
table,  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall  keep  my 
charge."  ^' 

This  passage  agrees  with  P  in  making  a  definite  dis- 
tinction between  the  priests  and  other  Levites;'*^  it  differs 
from  P  in  admitting  to  the  priesthood  only  the  sons  of 
Zadok,  while  P  recognizes  all  the  sons  of  Aaron  as 
priests.^''  This  fundamental  difference,  taken  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  Ezekiel  passage,  makes  it  evident  that 
Ezekiel  did  not  know  the  provisions  of  Num.  18.  1-7  and 
similar  passages  in  P.  Ignorance  of  such  a  law — if  it 
had  been  in  existence — on  the  part  of  a  member  of  the 
priesthood  would  be  inexplicable;  hence  it  may  be  quite 
safe  to  infer  from  the  nature  of  Ezekiel's  legislation  that 
the  law  embodied  in  P  did  not  exist  in  his  day,  and  that 
his  provision  marks  a  step  in  advance  of  D  in  the  direc- 
tion of  P. 

The  significance  of  the  Ezekiel  passage  is  fairly  stated 
by  Driver  in  these  words :  "It  seems  to  follow  incontro- 
vertibly  that  the  Levites  generally  had  heretofore  (in 
direct  conflict  with  the  provisions  of  P)  enjoyed  priestly 


"  Ezek.  44.  10-16. 

**  Compare  Num.  i8.  1-7. 

*^  Compare  Ezek.  44.  15  with  Num.  18.  i,  7;  3-  10,  etc.  The  sons 
of  Zadok  had  been  priests  in  Jerusalem  since  the  days  of  Solomon, 
I  Kings  4.  2,  4. 


210  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

rights  (verse  13)  :  for  the  future,  however,  such  as  had 
participated  in  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  high  places 
are  to  be  deprived  of  these  rights,  and  condemned  to 
perform  the  menial  offices  which  had  hitherto  been  per- 
formed by  foreigners  (verses  10,  11,  14);  only  those 
Levites  who  had  been  faithful  in  their  loyalty  to  Yahweh, 
namely,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  are  henceforth  to  retain 
priestly  privileges  (verses  15,  16).  Had  the  Levites  not 
enjoyed  such  rights,  the  prohibition  in  verse  13  would  be 
superfluous.  The  supposition  that  they  may  have  merely 
usurped  them,  is  inconsistent  with  the  passage  as  a  whole, 
which  charges  the  Levites,  not  with  usurping  rights 
which  they  did  not  possess,  but  with  abusing  rights  which 
they  did  possess.  If  Ezekiel,  then,  treats  the  Levites 
generally  as  qualified  to  act  as  priests,  and  degrades  them 
to  a  menial  rank,  without  so  much  as  a  hint  that  this 
degradation  was  but  the  restoration  of  a  status  quo  fixed 
by  immemorial  Mosaic  custom,  could  he  have  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  legislation  of  P  ?"  ^^ 

Naturally,  the  legislation  of  Ezekiel  did  not  appeal  to 
the  Levites.  And  if  their  assignment  to  a  subordinate 
position  was  a  recent  innovation,  it  is  easy  to  understand 
why  at  the  time  of  the  first  return  over  four  thousand 
priests  returned  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem,  but  only 
seventy-four  Levites,^^  and  why  at  a  later  time  Ezra 
experienced  great  difficulty  in  inducing  Levites  to  accom- 
pany him.^^ 

A  postexilic  date  would  explain  the  prominence  given 
to  the  high  priest  in  the  legislation  of  P.  The  Jewish 
community  was  without  kings  from  B,  C.  586  to  the  age 


"'Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  139,  140. 
"  Ezra  2.  36-40. 
"Ezra  8.  15-20. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  211 

of  the  Maccabees  in  the  second  century.  Moreover,  the 
interests  of  the  postexiHc  community  were  almost  ex- 
clusively religious  or  ecclesiastical;  hence  it  was  only 
natural  that  the  supreme  authority  should  come  to  center 
in  the  person  of  the  ecclesiastical  head — the  high  priest. 
To  the  same  period  point  other  considerations :  According 
to  Neh.  8.  18  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  kept  for 
eight  days,  as  is  prescribed  in  P,^^  as  against  the  seven 
days  of  D;^^  according  to  Neh.  10.  37,  38  the  people  paid 
tithes  to  the  Levites,  and  the  Levites  to  the  priests,  fol- 
lowing the  legislation  of  P,^^  but  not  of  D.^^  In  all  these 
and  other  matters  the  historical  situation  reflected  in  P 
is  later  than  that  presupposed  in  D  or  even  in  Ezekiel ;  on 
the  other  hand,  it  must  be  earlier  than  Ezra-Nehemiah, 
for  P  seems  to  underlie  at  least  some  of  the  reforms 
advocated  by  them. 

The  whole  situation  as  it  relates  to  the  historical  back- 
ground reflected  in  the  several  Pentateuchal  documents 
may  be  summed  up  in  these  words:  "The  legislation  of 
JE  is  in  harmony  with,  and,  in  fact,  sanctions,  the  practice 
of  the  period  of  the  Judges  and  of  the  early  Kings,  with 
its  relative  freedom,  for  instance,  as  to  the  place  of 
sacrifice  and  the  persons  authorized  to  offer  it;  during 
which,  moreover,  a  simple  ritual  appears  to  have  pre- 
vailed, and  the  Ark  was  guarded,  till  it  was  transferred 
by  Solomon  to  the  temple,  by  a  small  band  of  attendants, 
in  a  modest  structure,  quite  in  accordance  with  the  repre- 
sentation of  JE.  The  legislation  of  D  harmonizes  with 
the  reforming  tendencies  of  the  age  in  which  it  was  pro- 


"  Lev.  23.  39. 
"Deut.  16.  13-15. 
''Num.  18.  21-26. 
"Deut.  14.  22-29;  26,  12-15, 


212  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

mulgated,  and  sanctions  the  practice  of  the  age  that  imme- 
diately followed :  it  inculcates  a  centralized  worship,  in 
agreement  with  a  movement  arising  naturally  out  of  the 
existence  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  strengthened,  no 
doubt,  by  the  fall  of  the  northern  kingdom,  and  enforced 
practically  by  Josiah ;  its  attitude  toward  the  high  places 
determines  that  of  the  compiler  of  Kings,  who  wrote  in 
the  closing  years  of  the  monarchy;  it  contains  regulations 
touching  other  matters  (for  example,  the  worship  of  the 
"host  of  heaven")  which  assumed  prominence  at  the  same 
time;  the  revenues  and  functions  of  the  priests  are  more 
closely  defined  than  in  JE,  but  the  priesthood  is  still  open 
to  every  member  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  legislation  of 
P  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  which  shows  itself  in 
Ezekiel,  and  sanctions  the  practice  of  the  period  beginning 
with  the  return  from  Babylon;  and  the  principles  to 
which  P  gives  expression  appear  (at  a  later  date)  in  a 
still  more  developed  form,  as  forming  the  standard  by 
which  the  Chronicler  consistently  judges  the  earlier  his- 
tory. The  position  into  which  the  legislation  of  P  appears 
to  fall  is  thus  intermediate  between  Deut.  and  the 
Chronicler."  ^' 


"  S.  R.  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, pp.  138,  139. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

2.     Theological  Standpoint;  Literary  Parallels; 
Vocabulary  and  Style;  Mutual  Relation 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

2.     Theological  Standpoint;  Literary  Parallels; 
Vocabulary  and  Style;  Mutual  Relation 

I.  The  Theological  Standpoint  Expressed  or  Implied 
in  the  Pentateuchal  Documents.  The  theological  differ- 
ences discoverable  in  different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch 
have  been  considered  in  an  earlier  chapter.^  Do  they 
throw  any  light  on  the  chronological  order  of  the  prin- 
cipal Pentateuchal  documents  ?  No  doubt  there  are  diffi- 
culties in  the  v^ay  of  using  this  kind  of  evidence :  ( i )  The 
successive  stages  in  the  development  of  Hebrew  theology 
are  not  easily  determined,  because  it  seems  to  have  de- 
veloped not  along  a  straight  line  but  in  zigzag  fashion; 
hence  the  time  when  a  theological  idea  first  became  a  part 
of  the  thought  life  of  the  Hebrews  cannot  always  be 
fixed.  (2)  Chronological  landmarks  are  more  difficult 
to  find  in  the  case  of  doctrines  than  in  the  more  concrete 
matters  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  priesthood.  (3)  In  the 
study  of  the  development  of  doctrine  it  is  necessary  to 
reckon  with  the  unusual  spirits,  men  in  advance  of  their 
age,  who  may  see,  accept,  and  formulate  a  truth  long 
before  any  considerable  number  of  people  become  familiar 
with  it. 

'  Chapter  X. 

215 


2i6  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

But  even  when  making  every  allowance  for  these  diffi- 
culties, the  student  will  soon  find  that  the  facts  presented 
in  Chapter  X  and  others  of  a  similar  nature  reveal  a 
definite  chronological  development  in  the  theological 
thinking  of  the  Hebrews,  which  makes  it  possible  to 
arrange  the  documents  giving  expression  to  these  dif- 
ferent ideas  in  chronological  order.  Without  going  into 
details,  attention  may  be  called,  by  way  of  illustration,  to 
the  differences  in  the  conception  of  Deity.^  No  doubt 
all  popular  representations  of  Deity  are  more  or  less 
anthropomorphic,  but  it  requires  no  expert  training  to 
see  that  the  anthropomorphisms  of  J  and,  to  a  less  degree, 
of  E  are  much  more  numerous  and  pronounced  than 
those  of  P.  The  conception  reflected  in  J  and  E  is  the 
more  primitive;  and  a  comparison  with  the  teaching  of 
the  eighth-century  prophets  shows  that  it  is  earlier  than 
their  day. 

On  the  other  hand,  D  presupposes  the  activity  and 
teaching  of  these  prophets.  Their  attacks  upon  the  cor- 
rupt Yahweh  worship  at  the  local  sanctuaries  contributed 
much  toward  the  formulation  of  the  law  of  a  single, 
central  sanctuary;  but  it  affected  theological  thinking  in 
an  even  more  fundamental  manner,  which  shows  itself  in 
D's  insistence  upon  the  unity  and  uniqueness  of  Yahweh : 
"Hear,  O  Israel :  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah."  ^ 
This  idea  is  the  sequel  of  the  prophetic  teaching  in  the 
eighth  century,  and,  in  turn,  prepares  the  way  for  the 
theological  arguments  in  Isa.  40-55. 

A  further  advance  in  the  conception  of  Deity  is  seen 
in  P.  For  example,  the  transcendence  of  God  above 
nature  is  conspicuous  throughout  the  entire  P  narrative 

*For  details  see  Chapter  X. 
•  Peut.  6. 4. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  217 

of  creation  ;^  there  are  no  anthropomorphisms  as  in  the  J 
narrative;^  God  does  his  work,  so  to  speak,  from  the 
distance.  The  elaborate  system  of  minute,  external  re- 
ligious observances,  which  is  a  part  of  P,  also  points  to  a 
late  date.  True,  early  ritual  is  often  elaborate,  but  there 
are  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  show  that  this 
was  not  so  in  early  Israel.^  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
abundant  evidence  in  the  post-exilic  writings  to  show 
that  after  the  exile  all  the  religious  leaders,  including  the 
prophets,  laid  great  stress  on  ritual  and  external  form. 

2.  The  Relation  of  the  Pentateuchal  Documents  to 
Other  Old  Testament  Writings.  Arguments  based  upon 
alleged  literary  parallels  must  be  used  with  a  great  deal  of 
caution  and  discrimination,  otherwise  the  conclusions 
reached  may  be  found  to  rest  upon  rather  insecure  foun- 
dations : 

(i)  The  occurrence  of  the  same  or  similar  ex- 
pressions in  two  documents  does  not  necessarily  prove 
dependence  of  one  upon  the  other.  Only  characteristic 
features  may  be  used  as  evidence.  Thus  the  statement 
in  Neh.  8.  18,  that  eight  days  were  given  to  the  observance 
of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  "according  unto  the  ordi- 
nance," may  legitimately  be  used  to  prove  that  P  was 
known  and  recognized  as  authoritative  in  the  days  of 
Nehemiah,  because  the  law  prescribing  an  eight-day 
feast  is  characteristic  of  P,'^  and  is  not  in  accord  with  the 
earlier  practice.'^  On  the  other  hand,  the  reasoning  of 
Hommel  is  faulty  when  he  writes:  "From  a  single  in- 


*  Gen.  I.  I  to  2.  4a. 
"  Gen.  2.  4b-25. 

•  For  example,  Amos  5.  25 ;  Jer.  7.  22,  23,  etc. 


'  Lev.  23.  39 
*Deut.  16.  13-15 


2i8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

stance,  namely,  the  passage  in  Deut.  28.  68,  I  am  able  to 
prove  that  Deuteronomy  must  have  been  known  to  the 
prophets  at  least  as  early  as  740.  In  this  verse  there  is  a 
threat  that  'the  Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  Egypt  again 
with  ships.'  This  passage  is  twice  quoted  by  Hosea 
(8.  13  and  9.  3).  .  .  .  The  only  possible  deduction  from 
this  is  that  Deuteronomy  must  have  been  in  existence  at 
least  long  before  Hosea."  ^  The  passages  in  Hosea  read : 
"They  shall  return  to  Egypt,"  and,  "Ephraim  shall  return 
to  Egypt."  Neither  thought  nor  language  is  exactly  the 
same  as  in  Deuteronomy;  and  the  occurrence  of  these 
words  in  Hosea  proves  nothing  as  to  the  date  of 
Deuteronomy. 

(2)  Modern  scholars  do  not  claim,  as  seems  to  be 
erroneously  assumed  by  some,  that  the  contents  of  the 
Pentateuchal  documents  were  invented  by  the  authors  of 
these  documents,  or  that  the  laws  embodied  in  them  or 
the  institutions  mentioned  by  them  were  created  at  the 
time  the  documents  were  written.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  universally  admitted  that  some  of  the  traditions  which 
form  a  part  of  the  narrative  sections  may  have  been 
handed  down  from  an  early  age  and  that  some  of  the  laws 
and  institutions  may  go  back  to  very  early  days.  Only 
the  exact  form  and  the  historical  and  literary  setting  are 
assigned  to  later  periods.  This  being  the  case,  a  refer- 
ence in  early  literature  to  institutions  or  practices  which 
occupy  a  prominent  place  in  an  alleged  late  document 
may  establish  an  early  date  for  these  institutions,  without 
throwing  any  light  whatsoever  on  the  date  of  the  docu- 
ment. To  illustrate:  Amos  5.  21-23  and  Isa.  i.  10-15 
presuppose  the  practice  of  an  elaborate  ritual  and  of  a 


'  F.  Hommel,  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  pp.  10,  11. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  219 

very  complete  system  of  sacrifices.  The  same  sacrifices 
play  a  prominent  role  in  P.^°  From  this  it  has  been 
inferred  that  the  eighth-century  prophets  knew  the  entire 
Pentateuch.^^  But  this  inference  is  not  warranted.  No 
doubt  the  eighth-century  prophets  knew  certain  sacrifices 
and  rites  that  are  frequently  mentioned  and  prescribed  in 
some  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  this  familiarity  may 
prove  that  these  rites  and  sacrifices  were  known  and 
practiced  in  Israel  as  early  as  the  eighth  century,  or  even 
earlier;  but  from  this  admission  no  legitimate  inference 
can  be  drawn  regarding  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch,  or 
of  any  part  of  the  same. 

(3)  In  some  cases  in  which  the  similarities  between 
two  documents  are  striking  enough  to  imply  literary 
dependence  of  some  sort  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to 
prove  which  of  the  two  is  the  borrower.  For  instance, 
the  resemblances  between  Ezekiel  and  Lev.  26.  3ff.  are 
so  numerous  and  so  striking  that  it  is  quite  generally 
agreed  that  there  is  some  kind  of  literary  dependence. 
Nevertheless,  after  years  of  discussion,  scholars  are  not 
yet  agreed  as  to  what  is  the  exact  nature  of  the  relation 
and  whether  the  priority  lies  with  Ezekiel  or  with  Lev. 
26.  3ff.i2 

(4)  If  a  literary  work  is  a  compilation  from  several 
sources,  a  literary  parallel  to  material  taken  from  one  of 
these  sources  affords  no  evidence  as  to  the  dates  of  the 
other  sources.  If,  for  example,  there  should  be  refer- 
ences in  Amos  or  Hosea  to  incidents  recorded  in  J  or  E, 
these  might  prove  that  J  or  E  was  in  existence  at  that 


'*  See,  for  example,  Lev.  1-7. 

"  W.  H.  Green,  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  S4ff. 
"  See  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, p.  147. 


220  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

time,  but  nothing  could  be  inferred  as  to  the  date  of 
D  or  P. 

(5)  Ha  writing  shows  numerous  parallels  to  a  body 
of  literature  that  is  known  to  belong  to  a  certain  period, 
it  may  be  legitimate  to  conclude  that  it  belongs  to  the 
same  general  period,  even  though  mathematical  demon- 
stration may  not  be  possible.  Thus  the  numerous  simi- 
larities between  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Law 
of  Holiness^^  may  be  used  as  evidence  to  prove  that  the 
latter,  in  its  final  form,  was  written  during  the  early  years 
of  the  exile. 

With  these  cautions  in  mind,  the  alleged  literary  paral- 
lels between  the  Pentateuchal  documents  and  other  Old 
Testament  literature  may  be  considered  for  the  purpose 
of  determining,  if  possible,  the  chronological  order  of 
these  documents.  The  books  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah, 
and  Micah,  whatever  additions  they  may  have  received 
at  later  times,  undoubtedly  contain  material  coming  from 
the  eighth  century.  Now,  because  these  early  portions 
show  points  of  contact  with  J  and  E,  the  claim  has  been 
made  that  the  prophets  named  were  familiar  with  the 
Pentateuch  in  its  present  form.^^  This  inference  is  un- 
warranted. All  that  may,  perhaps,  be  inferred  is  that 
they  knew  J  and  E,  because  all  the  points  of  contact 
discoverable  are  with  these  documents;  there  are  none 
with  D  and  P.  But  even  this  much  is  not  necessarily 
implied  in  the  prophetic  references ;  it  cannot  be  proved 


"Lev.  17-26. 

"Amos  refers  to  the  law  concerning  pledges  (2.  8;  compare 
Exod.  22.  26)  ;  Hosea  to  Jacob's  wrestling  with  the  angel  (12.  2-6; 
compare  Gen.  32.  22-32)  ;  Amos  and  Isaiah  to  the  overthrow  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Amos  4-  n;  Isa.  i.  9;  compare  Gen.  19); 
Micah  to  the  land  of  Nimrod  (5.  6;  compare  Gen.  10.  8,  9)  and  to 
the  story  of  Balak  and  Balaam  (6.  5;  compare  Num.  22-24),  etc. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  221 

that  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch  was  known  to  them  in 
written  form;  all  the  facts  would  receive  a  satisfactory- 
explanation  on  the  assumption  that  much  of  the  material, 
historical  and  legal,  now  found  in  the  Pentateuch  was 
common  property — but  not  necessarily  in  written  form — . 
of  the  people  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  At  the  same 
time  it  may  safely  be  assumed  that  literary  documents 
were  in  existence  in  Israel  at  that  time;  if  so,  there  is 
nothing  to  militate  against  the  further  assumption  that 
the  prophets  were  familiar  with  them.  But  if  they  knew 
any  of  the  documents  which  now  form  a  part  of  the 
Pentateuch,  they  must  have  been  J  and  E;  there  is  not 
the  slightest  indication  that  they  knew  D  or  P.  If  these 
facts  mean  anything,  it  is  that  J  and  E  are  earlier  and 
D  and  P  later  than  the  eighth-century  prophets. 

The  literature  that  originated  prior  to  the  reform 
movement  of  Josiah  reveals  no  knowledge  of  D ;  on  the 
other  hand,  the  books  written  subsequently,  especially 
during  the  closing  years  of  the  monarchy  and  during  the 
Babylonian  exile,  give  evidence  of  its  influence  on  almost 
every  page.  The  language  and  style  of  Jeremiah  show 
such  close  resemblances  to  D  that  Colenso  reached  the 
conclusion  that  Jeremiah  was  the  author  of  D.  Though 
this  opinion  has  found  no  favor  with  modern  scholars, 
the  similarities  are  so  striking  that  on  this  ground  alone 
the  two  books  might  be  assigned  to  the  same  general 
period.^^  The  editor  of  the  book  of  Kings,  who  was 
active  at  this  time,  wrote  from  the  point  of  view  of  D ; 
he  assumed  throughout  that  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  is 


"  It  may  be  noted,  for  instance,  that  the  phrase  "the  priests,  the 
Levites,"  which  is  not  found  in  earlier  literature,  is  characteristic 
of  both. 


222  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  only  legitimate  sanctuary.  Even  in  the  postexilic  age 
the  influence  of  D  was  felt.^^ 

P  has  affinities  with  the  earlier  and  influences  the  later 
postexilic  literature.  H — the  Law  of  Holiness — which 
is  embodied  in  P,  is  even  more  closely  connected  with 
Ezekiel  than  is  D  with  Jeremiah  ;^'^  and  the  resemblances 
between  the  two  are  so  great  that  Graf,  Colenso,  Kayser, 
and  others  ascribed  the  code  to  Ezekiel,  either  as  its 
collector  or  its  redactor.  At  any  rate,  Ezekiel  shows  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  it,  and  in  its  final  form  it 
may  well  have  come  from  the  same  priestly  circles  to 
which  the  prophet  belonged ;  which  would  make  it  several 
decades  later  than  D. 

That  P  is  later  than  D  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that 
Deut.  II.  6  evidently  was  written  without  regard  for  the 
story  in  Num.  i6.  iff.,  which  is  a  part  of  P;  the  latter 
names  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  as  participants  in  the 
rebellion  against  Moses  and  Aaron;  the  former  seems 
to  know  only  Dathan  and  Abiram.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  priests  and  Levites,  which  is  characteristic  of 
P,  cannot  be  separated  from  Ezek.  44.  10-15;  but  the 
manner  in  which  the  distinction  is  referred  to  in  P — 
Ezekiel  considers  the  menial  functions  a  degradation,  P  a 
long-established  privilege — makes  it  probable  that  a  con- 
siderable interval  separates  P  from  Ezekiel — evidently 
P  is  later  than  Ezekiel.  Neh.  8.  18;  10.  37,  38  reveal 
the  influence  of  P,  and  the  Chronicler  seems  to  have 
known  not  only  P,  but  the  Pentateuch  in  completed  form. 
The  literary  parallels,  therefore,  would  place  the  origin 


'•Neh.  I.  5ff.;  Dan.  9. 

"  Compare   Driver,   Introduction   to   the   Literature   of   the   Old 
Testament,  p.  145. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  223 

of  P  between  Ezekiel  and  Chronicles,  not  later  than  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.  C.^* 

3.  Peculiarities  of  Vocabulary  and  Style.  The  linguistic 
evidence  has  been  used  both  to  prove^^  and  to  disprove^*^ 
the  traditional  views  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  standing  by  itself  the  linguistic  argu- 
ment is  rarely  decisive;  in  most  cases  it  can  be  appealed 
to  only  as  corroborating  a  position  justified  by  other 
considerations.  Regarding  the  use  of  the  argument  made 
by  Keil  and  other  defenders  of  the  traditional  view,  it 
may  be  said  that  the  impressive  lists  of  expressions  col- 
lected by  them  are  by  no  means  conclusive,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  is  no  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  words 
and  phrases  other  than  the  assumption  that  the  books  in 
which  they  occur  were  written  at  an  early  date. 

That  the  linguistic  characteristics  of  different  sections 
of  the  Pentateuch  suggest  diversity  of  authorship  has 
been  pointed  out  in  another  connection  f'^  but  it  is  quite 
impossible  to  determine  from  these  characteristics  the 
dates  of  the  several  documents.  This  is  especially  true  of 
J  and  E  which,  as  the  earliest  Hebrew  documents  of  any 
length  in  existence,  cannot  be  judged  by  other  literature. 
However,  the  general  history  of  the  Hebrew  language 
shows  that  the  vocabulary  of  these  documents  fits  the 
period  to  which  they  are  assigned  for  other  reasons.  In 
the  case  of  the  other  documents  external  criteria  are 
furnished  by  writings  whose  dates  are  fixed.  Thus  the 
resemblances  between  D  and  Jeremiah,  while  not  proving 

"It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  this  refers  only  to  the 
final  literary  form;  the  writer  embodied  much  material,  both  his- 
torical and  legal,  that  had  been  handed  down  from  earlier  days. 

"See  above,  p.  ii7- 

•"See  above,  pp.  162-164. 

"  See  above,  pp.  164,  165. 


224 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 


that  D  was  written  in  the  age  of  Jeremiah,  certainly  do 
not  prohibit  its  assignment  to  that  period.  In  the  same 
way,  the  hnguistic  resemblances  between  P  and  books  that 
are  known  to  be  exilic  or  postexilic,  while  not  sufficiently 
numerous  to  establish  an  exilic  or  postexilic  date  for  P, 
at  least  prove  that  an  exilic  or  postexilic  date  is  in  perfect 
accord  with  the  linguistic  peculiarities  of  that  document. 

Turning  now  to  the  matter  of  style,  there  are  enough 
differences  between  the  narrative  portions  of  J  and  E  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  P  on  the  other,  to  warrant  the 
assertion  that  J  and  E  are  earlier  than  P.^^  "In  JE,"  says 
Driver,  "the  patriarchs  are  men  of  flesh  and  blood;  the 
incidents  of  their  history  arise  naturally  out  of  their  ante- 
cedents, and  the  character  of  the  circumstances  in  which 
they  are  placed.  Moreover,  in  the  topics  dwelt  upon,  such 
as  the  rivalries  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  and  of  Laban  and 
Jacob,  or  the  connection  of  the  patriarchs  with  places 
famed  in  later  days  as  sanctuaries,  the  interests  of  the 
narrator's  own  age  are  reflected ;  in  P  we  have  a  skeleton 
from  which  such  touches  of  life  and  nature  are  absent, 
an  outline  in  which  legislative,  statistical,  chronological 
elements  are  the  sole  conspicuous  feature.  There  is  also  a 
tendency  to  treat  the  history  theoretically,  which  is  itself 
the  mark  of  a  later  age."  ^^ 

4.  The  Mutual  Relation  of  the  Pentateuchal  Docu- 
ments. A  study  of  the  mutual  relation  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal documents,  or  of  provisions  contained  in  them, 
confirms  the  conclusions  stated  in  the  preceding  para- 
graphs, namely,  that  J  and  E  are  earlier  than  D,  and  D 

"Compare,  for  example,  the  genealogies  in  Gen.  4  (J)  with  those 
in  Gen.  5  (P)  ;  the  former  gives  them  in  a  fresh  and  lifelike  form; 
the  latter  has  removed  all  imaginative  coloring,  leaving  nothing  but 
a  bare  list  of  names. 

^Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  141. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  225 

earlier  than  P.  Support  for  this  assertion  may  be  found, 
for  instance,  in  the  development  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
as  reflected  in  the  several  documents:  J  and  E  take  little 
interest  in  ritual  f^  more  attention  is  given  to  it  in  D  f^ 
H^^  lays  still  more  stress  on  ceremonial  requirements; 
and  the  ritual  and  ceremonial  are  almost  the  sole  interest 
of  the  legal  sections  of  P.^^ 

The  laws  regarding  the  priesthood  pass  through  similar 
stages  of  development :  x\ccording  to  J  and  E  any  Israelite 
may  perform  priestly  functions  f^  D  limits  the  priesthood 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi  f^  the  Levites  are  not  named  in  H, 
the  priests  are  the  sons  of  Aaron,^^  and  the  high  priest 
appears  for  the  first  time  in  Hebrew  law.^^  In  P  a  sharp 
distinction  is  drawn  between  the  priests,  the  sons  of 
Aaron  and  the  Levites,^^  and  the  exceptional  sanctity  and 
authority  of  the  high  priest  receive  elaboration.^^ 

A  similar  gradual  advance  may  be  noted  in  the  provi- 
sions for  the  support  of  the  priesthood  and  of  the  sanc- 
tuary. The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  embodied  in  JE, 
provides  for  the  presentation  of  first-fruits  and  first- 
lings,^^ and  E  makes  mention  of  tithes,  in  connection 
with  Bethel. ^^    D  gives  more  detailed  instruction  regard- 

"  See  above,  p.  204. 

"  See  above,  p.  206. 

'"Lev.  17-26;  earlier  than  P,  and  embodied  in  P,  see  below, 
pp.  287ff. 

"  See  above,  p.  158. 

'*  See  above,  p.  145. 

^^  See  above,  p.  145. 

^  Lev.  21, 22. 

*'  Lev.  21.  ID.  Undoubtedly,  even  before  this  time  the  priesthood 
at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  and  other  sanctuaries  had,  as  a  practical 
arrangement,  a  head  or  chief;  but  from  now^  on  the  high-priesthood 
appears  as  a  divinely  ordained  institution  of  special  sanctity. 

'^  See  above,  p.   146.  ^*  Exod.  22.  29-30. 

"Exod.  28;  29.  1-9,  etc.  ^°Gen.  28.  22. 


226  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ing  tithes:  it  recognizes  an  annual  tithe  to  be  spent  in 
sacrificing  and  feasting  at  the  central  sanctuary,  and  a 
triennial  tithe  to  be  given  to  the  Levites  and  to  the  needy 
in  the  community.^^  The  legislation  of  P  is  much  more 
complete  and  complex :  It  orders  every  individual  twenty 
years  of  age  and  older  to  pay  to  the  sanctuary  half  a 
shekel;  moreover,  the  people  are  to  pay  tithes  to  the 
Levites,  and  in  turn  the  Levites  are  to  pay  tithes  on  their 
income  to  the  priests;  in  addition,  thirty-five  cities  are 
assigned  to  the  Levites  and  thirteen  to  the  priests;  and 
further  provision  is  made  for  priests  and  sanctuary  by 
ordering  the  presentation  of  firstfruits  and  firstlings,  and 
by  allowing  the  priests  to  take  considerable  portions  of  the 
offerings  and  sacrifices  brought  to  the  sanctuary.^^ 

The  same  chronological  order  of  the  documents  is 
suggested  by  the  regulations  regarding  the  slaughter  of 
animals  for  food  or  for  sacrifice :  According  to  J  and  E, 
animals  may  be  slaughtered  and  offered  in  various 
places  f^  according  to  D  they  may  be  killed  anywhere,^^ 
but  sacrifice  may  be  offered  only  at  the  central  sanctuary.''^ 
Similarly,  in  the  course  of  the  centuries  feast  days  became 
more  numerous,  the  rituals  provided  for  them  became 
more  complex  and  more  clearly  defined,  and  in  some 
instances  they  were  observed  for  a  longer  time.^^ 


*'Deut.  14.  22-29;  26.  12-15. 

"Exod.  30.  11-16;  Lev.  7;  27;  Num.  15;  18;  35;  Josh.  21,  etc. 

^  Exod.  20. 24. 

^  Deut.  12. 15. 

*°  Deut,  12.  5-7. 

"For  the  earhest  legislation  see  Exod.  23.  14-17;  34-  22-24;  for  D, 
Deut.  16.  1-17;  for  P  (H),  Lev.  23;  note  especially  that  while  D 
directs  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  shall  be  observed  seven  days, 
P  adds  an  eighth  day  (Num.  29.  35)  ;  P  also  adds  the  Feast  of 
Trumpets  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  23). 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  227 

Thus  far  attention  has  been  given  only  to  the  evidence 
furnished  by  the  legal  codes,  and  only  a  few  illustrations 
have  been  cited.  These  might  be  greatly  multiplied,  but 
the  results  would  remain  the  same:  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  is  clearly  the  most  primitive  code  and  served  as 
the  basis  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation;  D,  on  the  other 
hand,  shows  no  acquaintance  with  P*^  and  seems  to  mark 
an  intermediate  stage  in  the  legal  evolution  beginning 
with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  culminating  in  P. 
Driver  describes  the  relation  of  D  to  the  other  legal  codes 
in  the  Pentateuch  in  these  words:  "Deuteronomy  is  an 
expansion  of  that  in  JE  (Exod.  20-23)  j  ^^  ^^  in  several 
features  parallel  to  that  in  H  (Lev.  17-26)  ;  it  contains 
allusions  to  laws  such  as  those  codified  in  some  parts  of 
P,  while  from  those  contained  in  other  parts  its  provisions 
differ  widely."  ^^  And  again:  "Hebrew  legislation  took 
shape  gradually;  and  the  codes  of  JE  (Exod.  20-23; 
34.  10-26),  Deuteronomy,  and  P  represent  three  suc- 
cessive phases  of  it."  ^* 

A  comparison  of  the  historical  portions  of  the  several 
documents  or  of  the  historical  references  and  allusions 
in  the  legal  portions,  leads  to  the  same  conclusions  re- 
garding their  relative  antiquity.  D,  for  instance,  contains 
numerous  references  and  allusions  to  events  narrated 
more  fully  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.^ ^    Now,  it 


**  Though  it  contains  parallel  requirements;  see  Driver,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  73-75. 

"Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  76,  77. 

**  Ibid.,  p.  143. 

"Especially  in  i.  6  to  3.  22;  9.  6  to  10.  11 ;  although  these  sections 
probably  were  not  a  part  of  D  in  its  earliest  form,  but  were  prefixed 
at  an  early  date  as  a  suitable  historical  introduction,  the  significance 
of  the  facts  remains  the  same. 


,228    THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

is  a  significant  fact  that  in  its  history  as  in  its  law,  both 
in  allusions  and  actual  expressions,  D  seems  to  be  de- 
pendent on  JE,  with  a  complete  disregard  of  the  narra- 
tive portions  of  P.  From  this  only  one  conclusion  may 
be  deduced:  "Inasmuch  as,  in  our  existing  Pentateuch, 
JE  and  P  repeatedly  cross  one  another,  the  constant 
absence  of  any  reference  to  P  can  only  be  reasonably 
explained  by  one  supposition,  namely,  that  when  Deuter- 
onomy was  composed  JE  and  P  were  not  yet  united  into 
a  single  work,  and  JE  alone  formed  the  basis  of  Deuter- 
onomy." ^® 

The  argument  based  upon  the  mutual  relation  of  the 
Pentateuchal  documents  evidently  favors  the  arrangement 
of  these  documents  in  the  chronological  order  suggested 
by  the  other  lines  of  evidence — JE,  D  and  P. 

To  sum  up,  the  discussion  in  Chapters  XHI  and  XIV 
seems  to  lead  naturally  and  inevitably  to  the  following 
conclusions  regarding  the  chronological  order  of  the 
Pentateuchal  documents : 

I.  J  and  E  reflect  the  historical  situation  of  the  period 
of  the  Judges  and  of  the  early  kings;  D  that  of  the  later 
kings,  especially  conditions  presupposed  in  the  account  of 
Josiah's  reforms  and  Jeremiah's  prophecies;  P  that  of  the 
exilic  and  postexilic  period,  especially  the  age  of  Ezra- 
Nehemiah.  2.  The  theological  standpoint  of  each  docu- 
ment agrees  with  what  is  known  of  Hebrew  theological 
thinking  during  the  period  to  which  the  document  is 
assigned  by  the  historical  background  reflected  in  it. 
3.  J  and  E  have  points  of  contact  with  other  Old  Testa- 
ment writings  known  to  have  originated  before  B.  C.  650; 
D  with  the  literature  that  can  be  dated  between  650  and 


"Driver,  Introduction  to   the  Literature  of  the  Old   Testament, 
p.  81. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  229 

the  exile;  P  with  that  of  the  exihc  and  postexiHc  period. 
D  appears  to  have  been  unknown  during  the  period  of  the 
early  monarchy,  P  before  the  exile.  4.  The  vocabulary 
and  style  of  each  document  are  just  what  they  might  be 
expected  to  be  if  the  documents  were  written  during  the 
periods  to  which  the  historical  background  points.  5.  In 
their  legal  as  in  their  historical  sections,  JE,  D,  and  P 
represent  three  successive  stages  of  development;  P  im- 
plies the  prior  existence  of  D,  D  the  prior  existence  of 
J  and  E. 


CHAPTER  XV 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

3.    Dates  of  the  Documents 


CHAPTER  XV 

CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

3.    Dates  of  the  Documents 

In  Chapters  XIII  and  XIV  the  aim  has  been  to  deter- 
mine, in  a  general  way,  the  chronological  order  in  which 
the  four  principal  documents  used  in  the  compilation  of 
the  Pentateuch  originated.  The  present  chapter  deals 
with  the  more  specific  inquiry,  Can  the  dates  of  the  several 
documents  be  determined  more  exactly? 

In  the  preceding  discussion  J  and  E  have  been  grouped 
together,  because  the  relation  between  these  two  docu- 
ments is  much  more  intimate  than  that  between  the  com- 
bined JE,  and  D  or  P,  or  between  either  J  or  E  and  D  or 
P.  The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  separating  the  two  are 
indeed  so  great  that  some  scholars  have  doubted  the 
independent  existence  of  the  document  symbolized  by  E;^ 
and  they  have  been  inclined  to  explain  the  passages 
assigned  by  others  to  E,  as  additions  to  or  modifications 
of  the  document  J.  But,  though  J  and  E  do  not  differ 
from  one  another  in  diction  and  style  as  either  differs 
from  P,  and  though  they  are  so  welded  together  that  the 
lines  of  demarcation  between  the  two  frequently  cannot 
be  determined  with  absolute  certainty,  the  facts  presented 
by  JE  receive  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  on  the 
assumption  that  it  consists  of  two  originally  independent 

^  See  above,  p.  67. 

233 


234  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

documents.  The  similarities  between  the  two  strands  of 
narrative  are  easily  explained  by  the  fact  that  their 
subject  matter  is  practically  the  same  and  that  both 
originated  in  the  same  general  period  of  Hebrew  literary 
history.  Nevertheless,  there  are  numerous  sections  in  the 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  commonly  included  in  JE  which, 
on  the  one  hand,  are  separated  from  J  by  the  use  of 
Elohim  instead  of  Yahweh,  by  theological  conceptions, 
by  linguistic  peculiarities  and  by  their  view  of  the  early 
history,^  and  which,  on  the  other  hand,  are  so  closely 
bound  together  among  themselves  by  these  same  charac- 
teristics, that  it  seems  most  natural  to  regard  them  as 
fragments  of  one  continuous  narrative,  which  at  one 
time  had  an  independent  existence. 

Can  J  be  assigned  to  a  definite  date  in  the  period  of 
the  Judges  or  of  the  early  kings,  during  which,  according 
to  internal  evidence,  it  must  have  been  written?  Evi- 
dently, JE  is  earlier  than  D;^  if  so,  J  cannot  have  been 
written  after  B.  C.  650.  Again,  if  the  eighth-century 
prophets  knew  JE  or  the  independent  J  and  E,  which, 
however,  is  not  certain,^  J  cannot  be  dated  later  than 
B.  C.  750.  To  a  date  earlier  than  the  eighth-century 
prophets  points  also  the  fact  that  the  prophetic  tone  and 
point  of  view  of  J  is  less  pronounced  than  in  the  pro- 
phetic messages  of  that  century;  though,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  general  religious  attitude  is  not  unlike  that  of 
the  line  of  prophets  beginning  with  Elijah.^  These  and 
similar  facts  have  led  most  modern  scholars  to  decide 

=  See  above,  Chapters  VIII-X,  and  below,  pp.  297-299. 

•  See  Chapters  XIII  and  XIV. 

*  See  above,  p.  220. 

'The  fact  that  the  prophetic  tone  is  less  pronounced  may,  perhaps, 
be  due  to  the  diflference  in  the  nature  of  the  productions— the  one  is 
narrative,  the  other  represents  prophetic  discourses. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  235 

upon  the  age  of  Elijah,  that  is,  about  the  middle  of  the 
ninth  century  B.  C,  as  a  suitable  place  for  J,  or  at  least 
of  the  earliest  layer  of  J,  if,  as  there  seems  ground  for 
believing,  the  original  J  underwent  one  or  more  later 
revisions  or  expansions.  A  few  scholars  favor  a  date  a 
century  or  more  earlier ;  thus  Schultz,  Koenig,  and  Sellin 
assign  it  to  the  latter  part  of  David's  or  the  earlier  years 
of  Solomon's  reign. 

Whatever  the  differences  of  opinion  regarding  the 
exact  date,  practically  all  modern  scholars  are  agreed 
that  J  cannot  have  been  written  earlier  than  the  time  of 
David.  In  support  of  this  view,  attention  may  be  called 
to  facts  like  these :  ( i )  The  central  thought  of  the  narra- 
tive from  beginning  to  end  is  that  Yahweh  has  chosen 
Israel  out  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  to  be  his 
peculiar  people,  that  he  has  blessed  it  more  than  other 
nations  and  has  appointed  it  to  become  a  blessing  to  all, 
and  that  from  the  beginning  he  has  appointed  Canaan  to 
be  the  exclusive  possession  of  his  people.  The  confident 
tone  of  the  narrative  with  regard  to  these  promises  is 
thought  to  imply:  (a)  That  the  author  knew  a  united 
Israel,  such  as  was  not  found  during  the  period  of  the 
Judges  or  even  under  Saul,  (b)  That  Judah  was  a  real 
and  prominent  part  of  the  nation.  During  the  period  of 
the  Judges  Judah  was  separated  from  the  tribes  in  the 
center  and  in  the  north  by  a  line  of  Canaanite  cities,  of 
which  Jebus-Jerusalem  was  one.^  (c)  That  the  historical 
situation  in  the  days  of  the  author  warranted  the  convic- 
tion that  Israel  would  completely  overcome  the  native 
population.  The  final  conflicts  between  the  Israelites  and 
Canaanites  belong  to  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon. 

'Deut.  33.  7.  In  the  Song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  5),  Judah  is  not 
even  mentioned  among  the  tribes  of  Israel. 


236  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

(d)  There  are  passages  which  imply  that  the  Exodus  is 
in  the  past,  that  Israel  has  subjected  the  Canaanites,  and 
is  firmly  established  in  the  land.'^  (2)  Moreover,  J  is 
acquainted  with  the  monarchy  as  a  reality  in  Israel,^  and 
with  kings  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,®  which  makes  the  reign 
of  David  the  earliest  possible  date.  These  facts  may  not 
amount  to  a  mathematical  demonstration,  as  the  available 
facts  rarely  do  in  investigations  of  this  sort;  at  the  same 
time,  what  evidence  there  is  seems  sufficiently  strong  to 
give  at  least  a  high  degree  of  probability  to  the  view  that 
J  was  written  at  the  earliest  during  the  reign  of  David. 

If  the  age  of  David  offers  the  earliest  possible  date 
for  J,  are  Koenig,  Sellin,  and  others  right  in  assigning 
it  to  the  reign  of  David  or  that  of  his  immediate  suc- 
cessor Solomon,  or  is  it  necessary  to  follow  the  majority 
of  scholars  and  date  it  a  century  or  more  later?  Sellin 
puts  forward  several  arguments  in  favor  of  the  former 
alternative  :^^  ( i )  The  document  contains  not  the  slightest 
reference  or  allusion  to  the  division  of  the  kingdom;  the 
entire  narrative  is  permeated  by  the  consciousness  that 
the  whole  nation  is  the  people  of  promise.  Such  assur- 
ance would  be  inexplicable  after  the  death  of  Solomon, 
(2)  The  conception,  implied  again  and  again  in  J,  that 
the  Canaanites,  though  not  entirely  destroyed,  yet  had 
been  transformed  from  masters  to  slaves,  evidently  is  a 
reflection  of  a  situation  brought  about  under  David.^^ 


^Gen.  12.  6;  13.  7;  40.  15;  compare  Num.  32.  41  with  Judg.  10.  4. 

•Gen.  36.  31. 

'Gen.  49.  8-12. 

^'' Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  31. 

"Compare  Gen.  9.  25;  12.  6;  13.  7;  Judg.  i.  28,  29  with  2  Sam. 
5.  6ff. ;  24.  i8ff.  From  i  Kings  9.  15,  21  it  has  generally  been 
inferred  that  forced  labor,  a  sign  of  complete  subjugation,  was  not 
imposed  upon  the  Canaanites  until  the  reign  of   Solomon.     This, 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  '  237 

(3)  J  contains  no  traces  of  any  acquaintance  with  the 
new  administrative  scheme  of  Solomon  ;^2  which  would 
exclude  a  date  during  the  latter  part  of  Solomon's  reign. 

(4)  The  absolute,  firm  faith  in  Yahweh  as  the  God  of  the 
whole  universe,  which  is  characteristic  of  the  document, 
proves  that  the  author  did  not  know  of  the  cleavage  in 
the  religious  consciousness  which  appeared  in  Israel  dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  Solomon's  reign.^^  (5)  The  con- 
viction that  Israel  was  more  blessed  than  any  other  nation 
and  the  unshaken  confidence  in  the  divine  choice  and 
providence,  which  is  expressed  in  J^^  is  reflected  also  in 
the  narratives  of  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon.^ ^ 
(6)  The  religious  conditions  and  practices  presupposed 
in  J,^^  in  contrast  with  the  form  of  worship  introduced 
by  Jeroboam  I,  all  point  to  the  reign  of  David  or 
Solomon. 

Sellin  admits  that  these  arguments  are  not  conclusive 


Sellin  insists,  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  because  (i)  an 
officer  who  was  "over  the  men  subject  to  taskwork"  is  mentioned 
under  David  (2  Sam.  20.  24)  ;  and  (2)  it  is  inconceivable  that  David 
should  have  carried  on  campaigns  against  outside  nations  without 
being  master  in  his  own  territory.  2  Sam.  4.  2,  3  and  21.  2  also 
imply  successes  against  the  natives. 

"  I  Kings  4.  7ff. 

"l  Kings  II. 

"  For  example,  Gen.  12.  1-3. 

"i  Sam.  18.  17;  25.  28;  2  Sam.  5.  12;  8.  14;  14.  13;  21.  3; 
I  Kings  5.  1-5;  10.  iff. 

"Such  as  the  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries  (see  above,  p.  143),  the 
silence  concerning  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  (Exod.  34.  26  refers  to 
any  tribal  sanctuary,  and  Josh.  9.  23,  27,  if  from  J,  may  refer  to 
the  Yahweh  sanctuary  at  Gibeon— i  Kings  3.  4;  compare  2  Sam. 
21.  9),  the  references  to  the  consulting  of  Yahweh  (Gen.  25.  21; 
Judg.  I.  i),  a  practice  common  with  David,  the  absence  of  prophets 
as  mediators  of  divine  revelations,  and  the  constant  assumption  that 
Yahweh  is  to  be  worshiped  without  external  representation. 


238  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

but  thinks  that,  in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  pointing  to 
a  later  date,  they  may  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  origin 
of  J  in  the  period  suggested  by  him.  The  reasoning  of 
Sellin  is  based,  at  least  in  part,  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  traditions  and  stories  embodied  in  J  were  formulated 
at  the  time  the  document  preserving  them  was  written. 
He  evidently  fails  to  maintain  the  distinction,  carefully 
observed  by  him  in  other  instances,  between  the  origin 
and  the  writing  down  of  a  story ;  he  forgets  that  a  story 
once  fixed  may  be  handed  down  in  oral  form,  with  but 
slight  modifications,  for  generations  and  even  centuries. 
With  these  facts  in  mind,  it  is  easily  seen  that  not  a  single 
argument  of  Sellin  throws  light  on  the  date  of  the  actual 
writing  of  the  document.^ '^  All  the  facts  enumerated 
would  receive  a  satisfactory  explanation  on  the  assump- 
tion that  some  of  the  traditions  embodied  in  J  assumed 
a  more  or  less  fixed  form  during  the  period  of  the  United 
Monarchy;  which  is  far  from  proving  that  J,  or  even 
individual  traditions  or  stories,  assumed  written  form  at 
that  time.^® 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  difficult  to  prove  that  J 
was  written  in  the  ninth  century.     In  the  absence  of 


"The  facts  noted  in  argument  2  would  be  true  at  any  time 
subsequent  to  David ;  regarding  3,  it  may  be  asked  if  there  was  any 
occasion  why  the  writer  should  have  referred  to  the  scheme; 
regarding  4  :  if  the  document  had  been  written  in  Judah,  subsequently 
to  Solomon,  by  a  firm  believer  in  Yahweh,  would  he  have  taken  a 
different  attitude?  Is  the  confidence  to  which  reference  is  made  in 
5  less  pronounced  in  later  ages?  The  references  to  conditions  and 
practices,  enumerated  in  6,  would  be  possible  at  any  time  during  a 
century,  or  even  more,  following  the  death  of  Solomon.  This  leaves 
only  the  first  argument ;  and  the  silence  concerning  the  division  may 
easily  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that  the  traditions  in  J  were 
fixed  in  their  essential  point  of  view  before  the  division. 

"*  Steuernagel,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  209. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  239 

decisive  data,  "we  can  only  argue  upon  grounds  of 
probability  derived  from  our  view  of  the  progress  of 
the  art  of  writing,  or  of  literary  composition  or  of  the 
rise  and  growth  of  the  prophetic  tone  and  feeling  in 
ancient  Israel,  or  of  the  period  at  which  the  traditions 
contained  in  the  narratives  might  have  taken  shape,  or 
of  the  probability  that  they  would  have  been  written 
down  before  the  impetus  given  to  culture  by  the  monarchy 
had  taken  effect,  and  similar  considerations,  for  esti- 
mating most  of  which,  though  plausible  arguments  on 
one  side  or  the  other  may  be  advanced,  a  standard  on 
which  we  can  confidently  rely  scarcely  admits  of  being 
fixed."  Thus  while  a  date  in  the  ninth  century  would 
explain  the  facts  presented  in  J,  and  would  satisfy  all 
that  is  known  regarding  Hebrew  history,  civilization, 
religion,  and  literature,  no  dogmatic  statement  can  be 
made.  Without  fixing  a  definite  date  it  may  still  be 
necessary  to  be  content  with  Driver's  conclusion:  "All 
things  considered,  both  J  and  E  may  be  assigned,  with 
greatest  probability,  to  the  early  centuries  of  the 
monarchy."  ^^ 

Though  there  is  no  unanimity  among  scholars  regard- 
ing the  place  of  origin  of  J,  by  far  the  great  majority  are 
inclined  to  look  to  the  southern  kingdom,  Judah,  for  its 
home;  only  a  few,  and  these  chiefly  among  the  earlier 
defenders  of  the  Document  Theory, ^^^  favor  a  northern 
origin.  On  this  point  again  the  evidence  is  rather  incon- 
clusive, but  what  little  there  is  points  to  the  south : 
(i)  Hebron,  a  sanctuary  of  Judah,  instead  of  Beersheba, 
frequented  by  Israel,  plays  a  prominent  role  in  the  patri- 


"  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  T^estament,  p.  125, 
**For  example,  Schrader,  Reuss,  and  Kuenen. 


240  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

archal  narratives. ^^  (2)  In  the  Joseph  narratives  Judah, 
not  Reuben,  the  first-born,  is  the  spokesman.^^  (3)  J 
furnishes  information  regarding  the  earhest  history  of 
Judah.^^  (4)  The  choicest  blessing  of  Jacob  is  reserved 
for  Judah.^^  (5)  In  the  account  of  the  conquest  J's 
chief  interest  is  in  Judah.^^  (6)  The  north-Israehte 
hero  Joshua  receives  sHght  consideration. 

E,  on  the  other  hand,  would  seem  to  have  come  from 
the  northern  kingdom,  more  specifically,  from  the  terri- 
tory occupied  by  Ephraim-Manasseh :  (i)  Localities  be- 
longing to  the  northern  kingdom  are  the  more  prominent 
in  E:  the  principal  residence  of  Abraham  is  not,  as  in  J, 
Hebron,  which  belonged  in  later  times  to  Judah,  but 
Beersheba,  a  sanctuary  frequented  by  the  people  of  the 
north,26  and  its  immediate  neighborhood.^'^  Bethel  is 
frequently  named,^^  and  Shechem  plays  such  a  prominent 
role^'^  that  some  have  thought  that  E  originated  there.^® 
Mention  is  made  of  the  burial  places  of  famous  persons 
of  antiquity  which  were  shown  in  the  north,  Deborah,^^ 
Rachel,22  joshua,^^  Joseph,^^  Eleazar.^^  (2)  Persons 
connected  with  the  northern  tribes  play  the  principal  roles 

"Gen.  13.  18;  18.  i;  y?.  14. 

"Gen.  ZT.  26;  43.  3,  8-10;  44.  14-34- 

"  Gen.  38. 

"Gen.  49.  8-12. 

"For  example,  Judg.  i.  1-21. 

"Amos  5.  S;  8.  14. 

"Gen.  20.  i;  21.  14;  22.  19. 

"Gen.  12.  8;  13.  3;  28.  19,  22;  31.  13;  35-  1.  3.  7,  etc. 

"Gen.  2>2>-  18-20;  35.  4;  Josh.  24.  i,  25,  32. 

*"  E.  Sellin,  Einleiiung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  35. 

"Gen.  35.  8. 

"Gen.  35.  19,  20. 

"Josh,  24.  30. 

"Josh.  24.  32. 

"Josh.  24.  33. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  241 

in  the  narratives  of  E :  Joseph,  the  ancestor  of  Ephraim- 
Manasseh,  is  the  favorite  of  his  father  and  even  of  God,^* 
so  that  Jacob  pronounces  special  blessings  upon  the  sons 
of  Joseph.^"^  Joshua,  the  Ephraimite,  is  the  companion 
and  coworker  of  Moses,^^  and  after  the  latter's  death 
becomes  his  successor  as  the  leader  of  Israel.^^  In  the 
Joseph  narratives  Reuben,  not  Judah,  is  the  spokesman  of 
his  brethren.^*^  Thus  everything  seems  to  point  to  the 
northern  kingdom  as  the  home  of  E;^^  but  the  evidence 
connecting  E  specifically  with  Shechem  is  hardly  decisive. 
Another  important  question,  on  which  there  is  still  some 
difference  of  opinion  among  scholars,  is  the  relative  age 
of  J  and  E.  Earlier  advocates  of  the  Document  Theory 
were  inclined  to  give  priority  to  E;^^  in  their  footsteps 
followed,  among  others,  A.  Dillmann  and  E.  Riehm,  and 
among  Old  Testament  scholars  now  living,  this  view  is 
strenuously  defended  by  E.  Koenig.^^  Most  modern 
scholars,  however,  accept  the  priority  of  J.  In  support 
of  his  position  Koenig  depends  mainly  on  four  argu- 
ments; but  none  of  these  can  be  considered  in  any  sense 
conclusive:  (i)  The  construction  of  Q-'nbs — Elohim — 
God — with  a  plural  verb.  Why  this  should  weigh  heavily 
in  favor  of  an  early  date  is  difficult  to  comprehend,  when, 
according  to   Koenig's   own  admission,   the   same  con- 

~  Gen.  2,7'  3ff. 

"Gen.  48.  14-20. 

•'Exod.  2)2-  11;  Num.  ii,  28,  etc. 

"Deut.  31.  23;  Josh.  I.  I,  2. 

*°Gen.  27-  21,  22;  42.  37. 

"  See  also  C.  Steuernagel,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 
pp.  2I7ff. 

"  For  example,  Noeldeke,  Schrader,  Kayser,  Reuss. 

*^  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  pp.  203,  240.  Geschichte  der 
alttest.  Religion,  p.  12.  R.  Kittel  formerly  held  the  same  view;  but 
see  above,  p.  57. 


242  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

struction  is  found  in  passages  belonging  certainly  to  a 
relatively  late  date.^*  (2)  The  use  of  "Elohim"  rather 
than  "Yahweh"  in  the  earlier  portions.^^  The  same 
argument  would  prove  the  early  date  of  P.  (3)  The 
earnest  appeal  of  Joshua,  to  serve  Yahweh,^^  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  age  of  Moses  is  not  far  removed.  But 
why?  Are  not  the  appeals  of  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and 
the  other  prophets  equally  earnest?  (4)  The  mention 
of  the  "pillars"  in  E,  while  J  is  silent  concerning  them, 
shows  that  when  E  was  written  they  were  still  in  use, 
and  that  they  were  abolished  prior  to  the  writing  of  J. 
Following  out  this  reasoning,  since  Koenig  dates  E  in  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  he  would  have  to  assign  a  passage 
like  Isa.  19.  19  to  the  same  age  or  earlier. 

On  the  whole,  the  evidence  favors  the  priority  of  J: 
(i)  Many  of  the  narratives  in  J  appear  to  be  older  and 
more  original  than  the  parallel  stories  in  E.  The  J 
narratives  are  more  simple,  natural,  and  lifelike;  the  play 
of  human  emotions  and  of  natural  forces  is  made  to 
explain  successive  steps  in  the  development  of  the  inci- 
dents recorded,  while  the  writer  of  E  depends  much  more 
extensively  upon  the  supernatural  as  a  moving  cause. 
As  illustrations  may  be  mentioned  the  stories  of  Abraham 
or  Isaac  at  Gerar,^^  the  birth  of  Issachar,*^  the  wages  of 
Jacob  ;^^  indeed,  the  whole  early  history  of  Israel — the 


**For  example,  i  Kings  12.  28;  19.  2. 

*"  See  above,  pp.  I25ff. 

"  Josh.  24. 

*' Compare  Gen.  20.  1-17;  21.  22-32  (E),  with  Gen.  26.  I-33  (J). 

*'J  connects  it  with  Reuben's  mandrakes  (Gen.  30.  14-16),  E 
makes  it  an  act  of  divine  grace  (verses  17,  18). 

*•  According  to  J,  it  was  Jacob's  trick  that  gave  him  the  advantage 
over  Laban  (Gen.  30.  28-43),  according  to  E,  an  angel  interfered  in 
Jacob's  behalf  (Gen.  31.  9-^2). 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  243 

separation  from  polytheistic  surroundings,  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt  and  the  conquest  of  Canaan — is  represented 
as  much  more  miraculous  in  E  than  in  J.  (2)  The 
religious  and  theological  conceptions  of  E  are  in  advance 
of  those  expressed  in  J.  For  instance,  the  latter  repre- 
sents Yahweh  as  a  big  man,  he  eats,  drinks,  is  jealous, 
repents,  etc. ;  the  God  of  E  speaks  from  heaven,  he  does 
not  appear  in  human  form.^*^  It  may  be  due  to  this  more 
elevated  conception  of  Deity  that  the  author  of  E  gives 
to  his  God  no  proper  name  such  as  is  borne  by  other 
gods.  Hence,  even  after  he  has  introduced  the  explana- 
tion of  the  name  of  Israel's  God,  Yahweh,^^  he  uses  it 
but  rarely,  preferring  the  more  general  "Elohim,"  which 
to  him  is  much  more  significant. 

This  kind  of  evidence  may  not  be  conclusive.  The 
difference  in  point  of  view,  which  is  due,  fundamentally, 
to  differences  in  religious  conceptions,  might,  perhaps, 
be  explained  as  due,  not  to  difference  in  time  of  compo- 
sition, but  to  origin  in  different  circles  or  parties,  each 
having  its  own  peculiar  religious  views,  within  one  and 
the  same  community.  Nevertheless,  if  one  studies  the 
two  documents  in  their  entirety,  he  cannot  escape  the 
impression  that  E  is  younger  than  J. 

Numerous  attempts  have  been  made  to  fix  the  exact 
date  of  E.  If  it  originated  in  the  northern  kingdom,  as 
is  generally  thought,  it  must  have  been  written  before 
B.  C.  722 ;  but  how  long  before  cannot  easily  be  deter- 
mined. Most  modern  scholars  favor  a  date  between 
B.  C.  850  and  750,^^  but  there  are  a  few  who  lean  toward 

"Gen.  21.  17;  22.  11;  see  further,  above,  p.  156. 

"Exod.  3.  14. 

"At  least  for  the  groundwork  of  E;  practically  all  scholars  hold 
that  the  original  E  was  expanded  at  later  times  down  to  the  seventh 
century. 


244  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

a  much  earlier  date;  thus  Sellin  decides  in  favor  of  the 
later  years  of  Solomon's  reign,  and  Koenig  in  favor  of 
the  period  of  the  Judges.  Koenig's  view  as  to  the  date 
of  E  is  dependent  on  his  other  theory  that  E  is  earlier 
than  J,  which  cannot  be  established  by  the  arguments  he 
adduces,  and  has  been  seen  to  have  little  in  its  favor.^^ 
H  E  is  later  than  J,  and  if  J  cannot  be  dated  earlier  than 
the  reign  of  David,  which  is  regarded  as  certain  by 
Koenig, ^^  E  cannot  be  assigned  to  a  date  earlier  than  that 
suggested  by  Sellin,  namely,  the  latter  part  of  Solomon's 
reign. 

But  the  majority  of  scholars  seem  to  be  convinced  that 
even  this  date  is  far  too  early:  (i)  They  claim,  for 
instance,  that  Gen.  37.  8  and  Deut.  33.  13-17  imply  the 
existence  of  the  northern  kingdom,  in  which  the  Joseph 
tribe,  Ephraim,  was  supreme.  But  what  is  there  to  hinder 
the  counter  claim  that  these  passages  reflect  conditions 
during  the  early  period  of  the  Judges,  when  Ephraim 
occupied  a  position  of  considerable  prominence?  It 
should  be  remembered  that  E  represents  the  Ephraimite 
hero  Joshua  as  the  successor  of  Moses.  (2)  Gen.  31. 
48f¥.  is  said  to  be  a  reflection  of  the  Syrian  wars  in  the 
ninth  century.  This  may  or  may  not  be  true ;  it  certainly 
cannot  be  proved,  since  the  passage  contains  no  reference 
to  war.  (3)  Josh.  15.  2ff.  implies  that  Edom  is  no  longer 
a  part  of  Judah.  This  is  true;  but  Edom  was  lost  to 
Judah  during  the  reign  of  Solomon  ;^^  and  if  this  hap- 
pened during  the  early  years  of  Solomon's  reign,  as  is 
implied  in  the  narrative,^^  might  not  a  writer  during  the 


"  See  above,  pp.  241,  242. 

^Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  206. 

"'i  Kings  II.  i4ff. 

'•Especially  verse  21. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  245 

latter  part  of  Solomon's  reign  represent  Edom  as  lost  to 
the  Israelites?  (4)  The  assertion  is  made  that  the  more 
general  use  of  "Elohim"  throughout  the  document  pre- 
supposes the  struggles  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  which  created 
a  more  deep-seated  monotheistic  consciousness  in  Israel, 
which,  naturally,  would  lead  to  the  use  of  the  more 
general  "Elohim"— God — in  the  place  of  the  more  par- 
ticular and  specific  "Yahweh."  This  would  be  a  most 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  use  of  "Elohim"  if  the 
same  practice  were  seen,  for  example,  in  the  prophetic 
messages  of  the  eighth  century.  But  Amos  and  Hosea, 
prophets  of  Israel,  like  Elijah,  and  certainly  no  less 
monotheistic  than  he,  constantly  use  "Yahweh."  It 
would  be  quite  as  easy  to  prove  that  the  process  was  the 
reverse :  Before  the  days  of  Elijah  "Elohim"  was  widely 
used,  but  the  designation  of  "Yahweh"  as  "Elohim" 
created  a  tendency  of  reducing  him  to  the  level  of  the 
Baals  of  the  land ;  hence  upon  the  rise  of  a  deeper  mono- 
theistic sense  the  use  of  the  ambiguous  "Elohim"  was 
discouraged.  (5)  Josh.  6.  26  is  thought  to  presuppose 
the  rebuilding  of  Jericho  in  the  days  of  Ahab.^'^  But, 
why  not  turn  it  the  other  way?  May  not  the  act  of  Hiel 
presuppose  a  knowledge  of  the  curse  uttered  by  Joshua? 
All  this  simply  means  that,  while  E  may  have  been  written 
later  than  the  age  of  Solomon,  in  the  ninth  or  in  the 
eighth  century,  arguments  like  these  can  never  demon- 
strate the  truth  of  this  theory,  probable  though  it  may  be. 
Equally  inconclusive  are  the  arguments  urged  in  favor 
of  the  earlier  date:  (i)  Attention  is  called  to  the  fact 
that  E  contains  not  the  slightest  reference  or  allusion  to 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  subsequently  to  the  death  of 
Solomon.     Throughout  Israel  is  represented  as  a  united 

"  I  Kings  16.  34. 


246  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

whole.  In  response  to  those  who  interpret  Deut.  33.  7,  16 
as  reflecting  conditions  under  the  Divided  Kingdom,  it  is 
suggested  that  these  verses  may  well  reflect  conditions 
during  the  age  of  the  Judges.  (2)  Exod.  23.  31,  in 
giving  the  extent  of  Israel's  territory,  is  said  to  reflect 
conditions  under  David  and  Solomon.  (3)  While  J  does 
not  know  Jerusalem  as  a  sanctuary  of  Israel — which  is 
thought  to  prove  that  J  was  written  before  the  building 
of  the  temple  by  Solomon — E  recognizes  it  as  a  place  of 
divine  revelation,  along  with  Bethel,  Shechem,  etc.^* 
These  arguments  have  little  force:  (i)  Anyone  capable 
of  writing  E,  though  living  a  century  or  two  after  Solo- 
mon, would  know  that  the  division  was  a  comparatively 
recent  event,  that  formerly  the  two  kingdoms  formed 
one  national  unit;  hence,  when  writing  of  the  earher 
history,  he  would  represent  Israel  as  one  united  people.^* 

(2)  The  conquests  of  David,  more  extensive  than  those 
of  any  other  Israelite  ruler,  continued  to  live  in  the 
memories  of  his  people.  Naturally,  ever  afterwards,  in 
the  tenth  century,  as  in  the  eighth  or  seventh,  anyone 
desiring  to  state  the  widest  extent  of  Israel's  territory 
would   refer   to   the   boundaries   established   by    David. 

(3)  While  the  mention  of  Jerusalem  as  an  Israelite  sanc- 
tuary may  preclude  a  date  prior  to  David  or  Solomon, 
it  certainly  does  not  make  impossible  a  date  in  the  ninth 
or  eighth  century. 

Again,  as  in  the  case  of  J,  there  is  insufficient  specific 
evidence  to  fix  the  exact  date  of  E;  again  the  student  is 
compelled  to  rely  upon  such  general  considerations  as  are 
enumerated  on  p.  239.  These  make  it  quite  certain  that  E 
was  written  later  than  J,  but  still  during  the  "early  cen- 


'  Gen.  22.  2 ;  Moriah^the  temple  area  in  Jerusalem. 
*  See  also  above,  p.  238. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  247 

turies  of  the  monarchy" ;  and  they  make  it  very  probable 
that  at  least  the  first  edition  of  E  antedates,  though, 
perhaps,  not  by  many  decades,  the  appearance  of  the 
eighth-century  prophets. 

The  origin  of  D  having  received  sufiEicient  attention  in 
a  previous  chapter,^*^  the  discussion  may  pass  immediately 
to  a  consideration  of  the  date  of  P.  The  evidence  already 
examined®^  has  shown  that  the  date  of  P  must  be  sought 
somewhere  between  Ezekiel  and  the  Chronicler,  that  is, 
between  about  B.  C.  550  and  350.  The  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  narrate  that  in  B.  C.  458  Ezra,  a  descend- 
ant of  Aaron,  and  therefore  a  priest,  and  "a  scribe  of 
the  words  of  the  commandments  of  Jehovah,"  went  up 
from  Babylon  "to  inquire  concerning  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem according  to  the  Law  of  God,"  zvhich  was  in  his 
hand.^^  After  a  short  period  of  activity  Ezra  disap- 
peared from  view,  and  was  not  heard  of  again  until  after 
the  arrival  of  Nehemiah  in  B.  C.  445.  In  the  following 
year  a  great  popular  assembly  was  held,  before  which 
Ezra  read  out  of  "the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  ^^  That 
this  law  book  contained  P  is  beyond  question,  for  the 
account  contains  several  unmistakable  references  to 
passages  in  P.*'* 

There  are  many  scholars  who  hold  that  P  by  itself,  not 
as  a  part  of  a  larger  work,  was  the  Law  Book  of  Ezra.^^ 

«•  Chapter  XII. 

"  In  Chapters  XIII  and  XIV. 

"^  See  Ezra  7.  1-26. 

•^  Neh.  8-10. 

"  Neh.  8.  15  evidently  refers  back  to  Lev.  23.  40;  Neh.  8.  18  to 
Lev.  23.  36  (compare  Deut.  16.  13-15)  ;  Neh.  10.  36-40  to  Num.  18. 
12-32. 

*"  In  his  splendid  Einleitung,  published  in  1912,  C.  Steuernagel 
again  argues  strongly  in  favor  of  this  view,  pp.  264,  265,  but  his 
arguments  appear,  to  the  present  writer,  inconclusive, 


248  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

This  is  by  no  means  certain,  for  the  law  read  on  that 
occasion  contained  some  provisions  not  found  in  P  but 
only  in  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.^^  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  law  read  before  the  assembly  contained 
all  the  law  codes  of  the  Pentateuch ;  and  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  doubting  that  the  reformers  used  the  Penta- 
teuch, substantially  in  its  final  form.  The  objection 
urged  against  this  view  that  the  entire  Pentateuch  could 
not  have  been  read  in  so  short  a  time  is  met  by  the  text 
itself,  which  nowhere  states  that  Ezra  read  the  entire 
book,  but  that  he  read  in  the  book,  that  is,  selections 
from  the  book;  nothing  is  said  about  the  extent  of  the 
portions  read.^'^  Moreover,  the  Deuteronomic  law,  intro- 
duced by  Josiah,  must  have  been  known  at  least  to  the 
leaders  of  the  postexiHc  community;  and  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  these  would  be  ready  to  accept  an  entirely 
new  code  of  laws  and  by  so  doing  practically  discard  the 
old  one ;  on  the  other  hand,  they  might  be  quite  willing  to 
reaffirm  their  loyalty  to  the  old  code  and  accept  with  it 
an  expansion  which,  they  must  have  realized,  met  more 
adequately  the  spirit  and  the  needs  of  their  age.  Condi- 
tions were  different  in  the  days  of  Josiah:  prior  to  B.  C. 
621  no  law  had  been  publicly  promulgated  or  accepted 
by  the  people,  hence  there  could  be  no  fear  on  the  part  of 
the  people  or  their  leaders  that  the  public  acceptance  of  a 
law  would  result  in  the  discarding  of  an  older  legislation. 
There  is  still  another  consideration  in  favor  of  the  view 
that  the  book  from  which  the  law  was  read  was  the  entire 


"For  example,  intermarriage  with  natives  (Neh.  10.  30;  Heb., 
verse  31)  is  forbidden  only  in  Exod.  34.  16  (JE)  and  Deut. 
7.  3 ;  the  release  of  a  debt  in  the  sabbatic  year  (Neh.  10.  31 ;  Heb.  32) 
is  ordered  in  Deut.  15.  2. 

"  Neh.  8.  3,  8,  18. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  249 

Pentateuch,  namely,  the  fact  that  P  contained  the  history 
of  Israel  to  the  division  of  Palestine  among  the  tribes. 
The  account  of  the  conquest  and  the  division,  that  is,  the 
closing  section  of  P,  is  now  not  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
but  of  the  book  of  Joshua.  But  if,  in  B.  C.  444,  the  whole 
of  P  had  been  accepted  as  the  law  of  Yahweh,^^  would  it 
have  been  possible,  within  a  few  decades,  at  the  most,  to 
cut  off  a  part  and  exclude  it  from  the  Torah?  Thus, 
while  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  the  entire  Penta- 
teuch was  before  the  assembly  in  B.  C.  444,  what  evidence 
there  is  points  strongly  in  that  direction. 

If  the  entire  Pentateuch — aside  from  minor  additions 
and  editorial  changes — was  in  the  hands  of  Ezra  in  444, 
then  his  silence  between  458  and  444,  which  has  appeared 
so  inexplicable  to  many  scholars,  may  receive  a  satis- 
factory explanation.  The  law  which  he  brought  from 
Babylon  in  458^^  and  which  he  intended  to  promulgate  in 
Jerusalem  was  P;  but  when  he  became  familiar  with 
conditions  in  the  postexilic  community  the  conviction 
grew  upon  him  that  he  could  never  secure  the  acceptance 
of  P  at  the  expense  of  the  older  codes.  But  being  equally 
sure  that  the  older  laws  were  inadequate  under  the  new 
conditions,  and  that  the  people  needed  the  modifications 
and  adjustments  introduced  in  P,  he  set  about  to  unite  the 
new  code  with  the  older  material  in  a  manner  that  would 
preserve  the  good  in  all  and  yet  give  to  P  the  place  of 


**  The  case  would  not  be  essentially  diflFerent  if  it  were  assumed 
that  the  historical  sections  became  a  part  of  P  subsequently  to  the 
assembly  in  444.  Whenever  they  would  be  added  to  a  book  regarded 
as  unique,  they  would  be  accepted  as  an  integral  part  of  that  book, 
and  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult  to  remove  them  again  either  in 
whole  or  in  part. 

"Ezra  7.  14. 


250  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

prominence,  which  he  accomplished  by  making  the  latter 
the  groundwork  of  the  new  production. '^'^ 

According  to  this  view,  then,  P  became  public  property 
for  the  first  time  in  B.  C.  444,  not  as  an  independent 
document  but  as  a  part  of  the  larger  work  now  known  as 
the  Pentateuch;  after  having  been  brought,  as  a  separate 
document,  from  Babylon  in  B.  C.  458.  If  this  is  correct, 
it  must  have  been  written,  probably  among  the  descendants 
of  the  exiles  still  living  in  Babylonia,  some  time  prior 
to  that  date.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Ezra  himself 
was  the  author,  but  that  is  not  probable.  True,  he  knew 
the  document  intimately,  and  its  spirit  had  permeated  his 
whole  thinking,  but  the  reverence  with  which  he  treated 
it  makes  it  more  than  probable  that  it  was  the  work  of 
another.  How  long  before  458  and  by  whom  it  was 
written  cannot  be  determined;  but,  as  has  been  stated,'^^ 
internal  evidence  favors  a  date  some  distance  removed 
from  Ezekiel,  perhaps  about  B.  C.  500,  which  is,  approxi- 
mately, the  date  accepted  by  most  modern  scholars. 

The  discussion  in  the  preceding  paragraphs  has  pro- 
ceeded on  the  assumption,  which,  the  present  writer 
believes,  has  still  much  in  its  favor,  that  the  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  give  an  essentially  correct  picture  of 
the  reform  movements  in  which  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
are  said  to  have  been  the  leaders.  If,  however,  it  should 
be  demonstrated,  as  is  now  widely  held,  that  Ezra  did  not 
precede  Nehemiah,  and  that  he  did  not  cooperate  with 
him  until  the  latter's  second  administration,  in  B.  C.  432, 


^°It  may  well  be  that  the  reference  to  interpretation  in  Neh.  8.  8 
is  an  allusion  to  the  efforts  of  Ezra  to  harmonize  provisions  in 
different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  to  point  out  the  superiority 
of  P. 

''^  See  above,  p.  222, 


CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  251 

the  main  positions  advocated  above  would  remain  un- 
affected. The  date  of  the  public  reading  of  the  law- 
would  have  to  be  brought  down  a  few  years,  and  a  new 
explanation  would  have  to  be  provided  for  the  uniting  of 
P  with  the  other  codes,  but  these  changes  would  in  no 
wise  affect  the  view  that  the  Law  read  and  expounded  in 
the  public  assembly — whenever  held — was  taken  from  the 
entire  Pentateuch  and  that  P  was  written  in  Babylonia 
about  B.  C.  500.  The  same  would  be  true  if  Ezra  were 
placed  in  the  fourth  century,  and  even  if  his  existence 
were  denied.  True,  in  such  case,  Ezra  could  not  have 
played  the  important  role  in  the  promulgation  of  the  Law 
assigned  to  him  in  Ezra-Nehemiah  or  in  the  above  dis- 
cussion ;  more  credit  would  have  to  be  given  to  Nehemiah 
and  the  unnamed  leaders  of  the  age,  but  the  date  of  P 
would  not  be  affected  thereby. '^^ 

Summing  up,  then,  the  entire  discussion,  the  following 
conclusions  may  be  regarded  as  resting  upon  secure  foun- 
dations: (i)  The  chronological  order  in  which  the 
Pentateuchal  documents  originated  is  J,  E,  D,  and  P. 
(2)  The  approximate  dates  at  which  the  several  docu- 
ments were  written  are :  J,  during  the  early  centuries  of 
the  monarchy,  perhaps  in  the  ninth  century  B.  C. ;  Ej 
somewhat  later,  but  still  during  the  period  of  the  early 
monarchy,  perhaps  a  generation  or  two  preceding  the 
appearance  of  the  eighth-century  prophets ;  D,  during  the 
reactionary  reign  of  Manasseh,  about  B.  C.  675;  P, 
among  the  descendants  of  exiles  in  Babylonia,  about 
B.  C.  500. 


"  The  question  of  the  reliability  of  the  Ezra-Nehemiah  narratives 
is  discussed  more  fully  in  the  chapter  on  Ezra-Nehemiah  in  vol.  Ill 
of  this  Introduction,  which  is  to  appear  in  the  near  future. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ANCIENT  MATERIAL  EMBODIED  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

I.    Poetic  Material 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ANCIENT  MATERIAL  EMBODIED  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

I.    Poetic  Material 

The  view  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  is 
essentially  a  compilation  of  material  taken  from  four 
originally  distinct  documents — J,  E,  D,  P — may  be  re- 
garded as  firmly  established.  It  is  equally  certain  that, 
whenever  these  documents  may  have  been  written,  all  of 
them  contain  material  handed  down  independently,  in  oral 
or  written  form,  throughout  generations  and,  in  some 
instances,  centuries,  before  it  found  a  place  in  one  of  the 
four  documents.  In  many  cases  the  form  in  which  the 
material  reached  the  authors  of  the  documents  can  no 
longer  be  determined,  but  in  others  so  few  alterations 
were  made  that  even  now  the  passages  taken  from  earlier 
sources  can  easily  be  separated  from  their  contexts.  This 
is  true  more  especially  of  poetic  and  legal  material,  for 
which  the  compilers  simply  furnished  a  suitable  historical 
framework.  In  this  chapter  the  poetic  fragments  pre- 
served in  the  Pentateuch  are  brought  together  for  the 
purpose  of  discovering,  if  possible,  the  time  and  occasion 
of  their  origin. 

I.  The  Song  of  Lamech  or  Of  the  Sword.^  The 
context  in  which  this  "song"  is  now  found  suggests  that 

'Gen.  4.  23,  24. 

ass 


256  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  six  lines  of  this  poem  express  the  fierce  joy  of  primi- 
tive man  at  the  discovery  that  the  possession  of  metal 
weapons  gives  a  decided  advantage  as  compared  with 
other  means  of  defense,  the  possessor  of  such  weapons 
can  do  more  for  himself  than  even  the  Deity  can  do  for 
the  one  not  thus  protected.  Nothing  is  known  of  the 
origin  of  the  poem.  It  may  be,  as  has  been  suggested, 
that  it  did  not  originate  among  the  Israelites  at  all  but 
among  the  Kenites,^  a  nomadic  tribe  that  joined  the 
Hebrews  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.^  At  any  rate,  Marti 
is  right  when  he  calls  the  song  "an  echo  from  the  old 
times  of  the  Bedouins"  ;^  and  there  is  nothing  improbable 
in  the  suggestion  of  A.  R.  Gordon,  that  the  cry,  "Cain 
shall  be  avenged  sevenfold,"  may  have  been  an  old  Kenite 
war  cry.^  The  date  of  the  poem  cannot  be  determined. 
It  may  be  older  than  the  time  of  Moses,  and  may  have 
become  an  Israelite  possession  at  the  time  of  the  amalga- 
mation of  the  Kenites  with  the  Israelites;  then,  at  a  later 
time,  it  was  introduced  in  its  present  place  by  the  author 
of  the  prose  narrative  as  an  illustration  of  the  advantages 
of  metal  weapons. 

2.  The  Curse  of  Canaan.*^  Though  the  passage  pro- 
nounces blessings  upon  Japhet  and  Shem,  on  account  of 
its  dominant  note  it  is  generally  known  as  the  "Curse  of 
Canaan."  It  reflects  a  situation  in  which  Canaan  is 
oppressed  by  peoples  represented  by  the  other  two  names, 
but  the  exact  historical  background  is  not  easily  deter- 
mined.    Some  have  seen  in  the  poem  a  reference  to  the 

*  The  names  "Cain"  and  "Kenites"  are  closely  related ;  in  Hebrew 
they  have  the  same  root. 

*Judg.  I.  i6. 

*  The  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  46. 

"  The  Early  Traditions  of  Genesis,  pp.  188-191. 
'Gen.  9.  25-27. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  257 

final  subjugation  of  the  Canaanites  by  Solomon,'^  but  it 
might  equally  well  refer  to  the  struggles  during  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  when  Israel  was  getting  the  upper  hand.^ 
With  either  interpretation  the  reference  to  Japhet  re- 
mains obscure.  The  pre-Mosaic  period  would  offer  a 
more  suitable  occasion — the  attacks  upon  the  Canaanites 
by  Semitic  tribes,  called  Hahiri  in  the  Tel-el-Amarna 
tablets,®  and  by  sea- faring  tribes  coming  from  the  islands 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  south  coast  of  Asia  Minor 
that  made  themselves  masters  of  the  territory  later  known 
as  Philistia.^*^  Whatever  the  date  of  the  poem,  it  is  intro- 
duced into  the  biblical  story  to  show  that  the  subjugation 
of  the  Canaanites  by  the  Israelites  and  other  nations  was 
due  to  a  curse  pronounced  in  very  early  times  upon  their 
ancestor,  Canaan. 

3.  Oracles  Concerning  the  Patriarchs.!^  The  origin 
of  these  brief  sayings  is  obscure.  It  is  very  probable, 
however,  that  in  the  course  of  the  oral  tradition  the  divine 
promises  and  blessings,  by  which  it  was  sought  to  explain 
the  superiority  of  Israel  and  the  powerful  faith  concern- 
ing the  future,  gradually  assumed  poetic  form,  which 
would  make  them  more  easily  remembered  by  the  people. 
When  this  took  place  cannot  be  determined.  Generally 
speaking,  the  utterances  reflect  the  conditions  and  expec- 


'  I  Kings  9.  20,  21. 

•Judg,  4,  5. 

•See  F.  C.  Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testament, 
p.  126. 

''These  tribes  might  be  designated  Japhet,  for,  according  to 
Gen.  10.  2-S,  Japhet  is  regarded  as  the  ancestor  of  the  tribes  in  the 
north  and  northwest. 

"Abraham,  Gen.  12.  2,  3;  13.  14-17;  Isaac,  Gen.  26.  4;  Jacob, 
Gen.  27.  27-29;  28.  13,  14;  Joseph,  Gen.  48.  20;  compare  also  Esau, 
Gen.  25.  23 ;  27.  39,  40. 


258  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

tations  of  the  generations  during  which  Israel  acquired 
possession  of  Palestine. 

4.  The  Blessing  of  Jacob.12  Gen.  49  contains  a  series 
of  blessings,  or,  in  some  instances,  curses,  upon  the 
tribes  of  Israel.  The  patriarch  Jacob  is  introduced  as 
the  dispenser  of  the  blessings  to  his  sons,  the  ancestors 
of  the  tribes;  but  the  fact  that  at  least  some  of  the  tribes 
are  represented  as  already  in  Canaan,  shows  that  the 
poem  originated  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Moses.  The 
mention  of  Simeon^ -"^  favors  an  early  date — in  the  age 
of  the  Judges,  because  that  tribe  lost  its  identity  soon 
after  the  settlement  in  Palestine;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
special  blessing  pronounced  upon  Judah  seems  to  pre- 
suppose the  reign  of  David.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  that 
the  several  sayings  originated  independently  and  at  dif- 
ferent times,  and  were  collected  subsequently,  suffering 
such  modifications  as  the  purpose  of  the  collector  would 
demand.  The  poem  assumed  its  final  form  not  later 
than  the  period  of  the  United  Monarchy. 

5.  The  Triumph  Song  Over  the  Destruction  of  the 
Egyptians. 1"*  This  ode  of  triumph  commemorates  the 
wonderful  deliverance  of  the  Israelite  hosts  at  the  Red 
Sea.  That  an  experience  of  this  sort  should  inspire  a 
poetic  outburst  is  not  unnatural;  at  the  same  time,  the 
song  in  Exod.  15,  in  its  present  form,  seems  to  be  of 
later  date.    Verse  17.^^  for  example,  seems  to  presuppose 


'''Gen.  49.  2-27. 

"  Verse  5- 

"Exod.  15.  1-18. 

''  Compare  also  verse  13;  and  verse  IS  seems  to  imply  acquaintance 
with  subsequent  events : 

"Then  were  the  chiefs  of  Edom  dismayed, 
The  mighty  men  of  Moab,  trembling  taketh  hold  of  them: 
All  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  are  melted  away." 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  259 

the  building  of  the  temple  by  Solomon,  or,  at  least,  the 
selection  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  center: 

....  the  mountain  of  thine  inheritance, 
The  place,  O  Yahweh,  which  thou  hast  made  for  thee  to  dwell  in, 
The  sanctuary,  O  Lord,  which  thy  hands  have  established.'" 

True,  the  present  poem  may  be  the  expansion  of  a  shorter 
poem  composed  at  the  time  the  event  commemorated  took 
place;  but  if  so,  there  is  no  way  of  determining  the  extent 
of  this  earlier  poem, 

6.  Poetic  Fragments  in  Numbers  21.  Numbers  2 1  con- 
tains poetical  passages,  which  are  obviously  older  than 
the  prose  narrative  in  which  they  are  embodied:  (i)  A 
Song  concerning  the  boundary  line  between  Moab  and 
Israel.^'^  Of  this  only  a  fragment  has  been  preserved, 
the  meaning  of  which  is  not  altogether  clear.^^  It  is 
said  to  have  been  taken  from  a  collection  of  songs  called 
"The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,"  or,  if  Schmidt's 
emendation  is  correct,  "The  Book  of  Wars."  The  origin 
of  the  poem  is  obscure.  (2)  The  so-called  Song  of  the 
Well,^^  an  ancient  folk-song,  the  origin  and  occasion  of 

^'To  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  poem  originated  subsequently 
to  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  thus  to  save  an  earlier  date, 
even  though  it  might  be  later  than  Moses,  the  words  have  been 
interpreted  as  referring  to  the  land  of  Canaan  in  contrast  with  the 
desert  (compare  Deut.  i.  7,  19,  44;  Isa.  11.  9;  Ezek.  28.  16,  etc.), 
or  to  some  other  sanctuary,  such  as  Shechem  or  Shiloh ;  but  these 
interpretations  seem  forced ;  a  natural  interpretation  must  admit 
that  the  poet  is  thinking  of  the  sanctuary  in  Jerusalem;  and  if  this  is 
the  case,  then  the  poem  in  its  present  form  cannot  be  earlier  than 
David  or  Solomon. 

"Verses  14,  15. 

"  G.  B.  Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  284,  285 ;  N.  Schmidt,  in  Messages  of 
the  Poets,  p.  223,  suggests  a  reconstruction  of  the  text,  with  satis- 
factory results. 

"Verses  17,  18. 


26o  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

which  are  uncertain.  The  words  are  addressed  to  a  well, 
and  may  form  a  song  by  which  "the  Hebrew  women,  as 
they  stand  round  the  fountain  waiting  their  turn  to  draw, 
coax  forth  the  water,  which  wells  up  all  too  slowly  for 
their  impatience."  ^^  (3)  The  Song  of  Sihon's  Con- 
quests.^^ Like  the  other  poetic  fragments  in  the  chapter, 
this  poem  presents  difficulties.  The  text  has  suffered,  the 
purpose  is  obscure  and,  as  a  result,  the  date  is  uncertain. ^^ 
On  the  whole,  Schmidt's  interpretation^^  seems  the  most 
reasonable :  He  believes  the  poet  to  have  been  a  citizen  of 
Heshbon,  living  soon  after  the  conquest  of  the  city  by 
the  Israelites.  The  purpose  of  the  poem  he  interprets  in 
these  words:  "The  poet  exhorts  his  hearers  to  come  to 
Heshbon  to  build  up  and  establish  Sihon's  city  taken  from 
him  by  the  Israelitish  tribes.  For  from  this  city  the  fire 
had  gone  forth  that  had  consumed  all  of  Moab  down  to 
the  Arnon  and  beyond.  So  completely  had  Sihon  de- 
stroyed the  Moabitish  strongholds  that  Chemosh's  people 
seemed  to  have  perished  from  Heshbon  in  the  north  to 
Daibon  in  the  south.  Now  that  the  land  of  Sihon  had 
been  taken  from  him,  let  the  city  where  he  reigned  and 
which  had  suffered  during  the  siege  at  the  hands  of  the 
Israelites  be  built  up  and  established." 

7.  The  Oracles  of  Balaam.^*  Three  chapters  in 
Numbers  are  devoted  to  the  interesting  story  of  Balak, 
king  of  Moab,  and  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor,  a  seer  of 
great  renown.    Alarmed  by  the  advance  of  the  Israelites, 


***  G.  B.  Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  288ff. ;  Schmidt,  Messages  of  the  Poets, 
pp.  324f.  interprets  the  poem  as  a  song  commemorating  the  capture 
of  the  city  of  Beor. 

"Verses  27-30. 

"G.  B.  Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  299ff. 

"Messages  of  the  Poets,  pp.  326,  327. 

"  Num.  23,  24. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  261 

Balak  sends  for  Balaam  and  asks  him  to  pronounce  a 
curse  upon  the  invaders,  so  as  to  dehver  them  into  the 
hands  of  Moab.  But  Balaam,  driven  by  an  irresistible 
divine  impulse,  blesses  them  instead,  and  announces  the 
ultimate  conquest  of  Moab  by  the  newcomers. 

The  prose  narrative^^  furnishes  the  historical  setting 
for  the  utterances  of  Balaam,  which  are  in  poetic  form. 
There  are  seven  poems,  four  longer  ones  centering  around 
Israel,  and  three  shorter  ones  containing  threats  against 
other  nations:  (i)  Israel's  exaltation ;2«  (2)  Israel's  con- 
quering power ;2'^  (3)  Israel's  prosperity  and  strength ;2^ 
(4)  Israel's  conquering  king;^^  (5)  Destruction  of 
Amalek;^^  (6)  Devastation  of  the  Kenite  territory ;^^ 
(7)  An  oracle  of  uncertain  meaning.^^  It  has  been  sug- 
gested, with  some  degree  of  probability,  that  24.  1-19  is 
not  the  continuation  of  chapter  23  but  a  duplicate  account 
of  the  same  incidents.  If  so,  poems  (3)  and  (4)  may  be 
simply  different  recensions  of  (i)  and  (2),  the  former 
representing  the  tradition  current  in  the  south,  the  latter 
that  current  in  the  north. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  poems  there  exists  much  uncer- 
tainty. For  the  poems  centering  around  Israel,  Gray 
considers  a  date  prior  to  Saul  out  of  the  question,  and 
a  date  earlier  than  David  improbable  ;^^  they  may  well 
have  originated  during  the  period  of  the  early  monarchy. 
Of  the  shorter  poems  the  first,  against  Amalek,  may 
reflect  conditions  in  the  age  of  David  ;^^  but  the  other 

"Chap.  22  is  in  prose,  chaps.  23  and  24  are  partly  in  prose  and 
partly  in  poetry. 

"23.  7-10.  *^24.  21,  22. 

"  23.  18-24.  "  24.  23,  24. 

"24.  3-9.  "Numbers,  p.  314. 

**24.  15-19.  "Compare  i  Sam.  30. 

*'24.  20. 


262  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

two  are  generally  considered  of  a  later  date;  that  against 
the  Kenites  seems  to  presuppose  the  rise  of  Assyria,  and 
the  last  oracle  the  dawn  of  Greek  power. 

8.  The  Song  of  Moses.^s  Deut.  32  is  a  didactic  poem 
seeking  to  exemplify  "the  rectitude  and  faithfulness  of 
Yahweh  as  manifested  in  his  dealings  with  a  corrupt 
and  ungrateful  nation."  In  carrying  out  this  purpose 
the  poem  gives  a  retrospective  survey  of  Israel's  early 
religious  history :  ( i )  Yahweh's  goodness  in  establishing 
the  people ;^*^  (2)  Israel's  base  ingratitude  and  idolatry, 
with  the  consequent  judgments  which  brought  the  nation 
to  the  verge  of  destruction;^'^  and  (3)  Yahweh's  deter- 
mination to  deliver  his  people  from  their  distress.^* 

Internal  evidence  forbids  the  assignment  of  the  poem 
to  the  age  of  Moses.  Evidently,  the  Exodus  and  the 
occupation  of  Canaan  are  in  the  distant  past,'*''  Israel  is 
settled  in  Palestine,''*'  there  has  been  time  for  apostasy 
from  Yahweh,^^  and  even  for  the  calamities  sent  as 
punishments  which  have  brought  the  nation  to  the  verge 
of  ruin.^2  All  these  things  are  in  the  poet's  past ;  the  only 
thing  still  in  the  future  is  the  deliverance  from  utter 
annihilation.^^  T^at  it  is  a  relatively  late  poem  is  further 
shown  by  the  theological  conceptions  reflected  in  the  song, 
which  seem  to  presuppose  the  teaching  of  at  least  some  of 
the  great  prophets.  The  prophetic  tone  is  so  marked  that 
Cornill  calls  the  poem  "largely  a  compendium  of  the 
prophetical  theology,  steeped  from  end  to  end  in  remi- 
niscences of  the  older  prophets" ;  and  he  concludes  that  it 
cannot  be  assigned  "to  an  earlier  period  than  the  end  of 

""Deut.  32.  *» Verses  13,  I4- 

"Verses  1-14.  "Verses  15-19- 

"Verses  15-26.  *=  Verses  20-30. 

«  Verses  27-43.  *'  Verses  36-43. 
**  Verses  7-12. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  263 

the  Babylonian  exile,  if  we  should  not  indeed  come  down 
to  a  still  later  date."  **  Other  scholars  favor  an  earlier 
date,  but  the  song  can  hardly  be  much  earlier  than  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  in  other  words,  about  B.  C.  600.*^  In 
all  probability  the  poem  was  added  to  the  original  D  by 
the  same  editor  who  inserted  the  material  from  JE,  but 
who  took  the  song  from  another  source.'*^ 

9.  The  Blessing  of  Moses>^  The  Song  of  Moses  has 
been  made  an  integral  part  of  the  Deuteronomic  narra- 
tive; not  so  the  Blessing  of  Moses.  It  appears  as  an 
independent  poem,  the  introductory  verse  connecting  it 
but  loosely  with  the  rest  of  the  book.  The  introduction^^ 
describes  the  advent  of  Yahweh,  the  giving  of  the  law 
and  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom;  the  main  part*^ 
consists  of  a  series  of  eulogistic  sayings^*^  concerning 
eleven  of  the  tribes,  Simeon  being  omitted;  the  conclu- 
sion^^ emphasizes  the  uniqueness  of  Yahweh  and  the 
blessedness  of  his  chosen  people.  The  "blessings"  char- 
acterize each  tribe  by  some  salient  feature  in  its  history, 
situation,  or  character. 

In  many  respects  the  poem  resembles  the  Blessing  of 
Jacob, '^^  but  it  seems  to  reflect  a  more  advanced  stage  in 


** Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (English  translation),  pp.  123, 
124;  N.  Schmidt,  Messages  of  the  Poets,  p.  343. 

"Driver,  Deuteronomy,  pp.  345ff. ;  H.  T.  Fowler,  History  of  the 
Literature  of  Ancient  Israel,  p.  231 ;  the  date  suggested  by  Sellin, 
Einleitung,  p.  21,  the  age  of  Ahab,  when,  he  thinks,  a  disciple  of 
Elijah  wrote  the  poem,  is  less  probable. 

"  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  Ixxvii. 

*'  Deut.  33. 

"Verses  2-5. 

"Verses  6-25. 

""There  are  no  curses,  as  in  Gen.  49. 

"  Verses  26-29. 

"Gen.  49. 


264  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  historical  and  theological  development  of  Israel. 
Simeon  had  disappeared  as  a  tribe,  Reuben  was  on  the 
decline,^^  Judah  was  separated  from  his  brethren,^^  Levi 
was  recognized  as  the  priestly  tribe,^^  the  house  of  Yahweh 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  land  of  Benjamin,^^  Joseph 
occupied  the  most  prominent  position,^"^  Zebulun  and 
Issachar  were  commercially  prosperous, ^^  Gad  seems  to 
have  enjoyed  some  special  blessing  in  the  recent  past;^^ 
the  northernmost  tribes,  Dan,  Naphtali,  and  Asher,  are 
named  in  last  place. ^*^ 

Again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Song  of  Moses,  internal 
evidence  makes  it  impossible  to  consider  Moses  the  author 
of  the  poem;^^  but  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  its  exact 
date.  Koenig,  Sellin,  and  others  are  quite  confident  that 
it  originated  in  the  age  of  the  Judges;  the  majority  of 
scholars,  however,  look  for  a  suitable  occasion  in  the 
centuries  subsequent  to  the  division  of  the  kingdom ;  but 
there  is  no  agreement  as  to  the  exact  period.  Kuenen, 
Moore,  Steuernagel,  Cornill,  and  others  favor  the  pros- 
perous reign  of  Jeroboam  H  f^  others — Dillmann,  Driver, 
Westphal,  etc. — assign  it  to  the  age  of  Jeroboam  I,  that 
is,  soon  after  the  division.  No  doubt  some  of  the  utter- 
ances, such  as  the  reference  to  Levi  as  the  priestly  tribe, 

"  Verse  6. 

"Verse  7. 

"Verses  8-11. 

"Verse  12;  compare  Josh.  12.  10;  Judg.  i.  21. 

"'Verses  I3-I7- 

"Verses  18,  19. 

"Verses  20,  21. 

"*  Verses  22-25. 

"  Note  especially  the  reference  to  Moses  in  verse  4,  and  the 
reference  in  verses  27-29  to  the  conquest  as  a  thing  of  the  past  and 
to  the  peaceful  life  of  Israel  in  Palestine. 

"Approximately,   B.  C.  780-740. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  265 

point  to  the  later  period  ;^^  others  might  have  originated 
in  an  earher  age,  though  the  description  of  Judah  as 
apart  from  the  rest  of  the  people,  seems  to  presuppose  the 
division.  Perhaps,  as  was  suggested  in  connection  with 
Gen.  49,  the  several  utterances  originated  independently, 
in  different  places  and  at  different  times.  Later  they 
were  collected,  probably  in  the  northern  kingdom;^*  if 
so,  the  poem  must  be  dated  earlier  than  B.  C.  722,  the  date 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  northern  kingdom.  The  favor- 
able comments  on  the  tribe  of  Levi  have  led  some  scholars 
to  conclude  that  the  author  or  collector  was  a  member  of 
that  tribe. 

10.  Miscellaneous  Poems.  In  addition  to  the  poems 
discussed  in  the  preceding  paragraphs,  there  are  found 
in  the  Pentateuch  a  few  other  poetic  fragments  which, 
undoubtedly,  had  been  in  existence  for  some  time  when 
the  prose  narratives  embodying  them  were  written, 
( I )  The  Song  of  Miriam^^  is  a  repetition,  with  a  slight 
change,  of  the  first  two  lines  of  the  triumph  song  over 
the  destruction  of  the  Egyptians.^^  The  verse  may  be 
regarded  as  the  E  recension  of  the  original  song,  the 
longer  poem  being  embodied  in  J.  (2)  The  Oracle  of  the 
Altar  Fire.^'^  This  is  an  ancient  oracle,  of  uncertain  date, 
quoted  by  the  author  to  enforce  the  lesson  which  he 
sought  to  draw  from  the  catastrophe  that  befell  Nadab 
and  Abihu.  Schmidt  thinks  that  it  reflects  the  low 
opinion  which  the  Jerusalem  priests  had  of  the  priests  at 
the  sanctuaries  in  the  north,  and  that  it  was  written  subse- 


°'  See  above,  p.  145. 

"This  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  most  prominent 
position  is  assigned  to  Joseph. 
"Exod.  15.  21. 

"  Exod.  15.  I ;  see  above,  p.  258. 
•'Lev.  10.  3. 


266  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

quently  to  the  fall  of  Samaria,  in  B.  C.  722.°*  (3)  The 
Priestly  Benediction.^®  Though  embodied  in  the  Priestly 
Code,  this  benediction  undoubtedly  originated  much 
earlier  than  the  date  of  its  incorporation  in  P.  Very 
probably  it  is  of  pre-exilic  origin;  and  it  may  have  been 
used  as  a  part  of  the  temple  ritual  in  Jerusalem  before 
the  exile;  but  its  date  cannot  be  determined. '^*^  (4)  The 
Song  of  the  Ark.'^^  The  first  two  lines  of  this  poem  were 
probably  addressed  to  the  ark,'^^  when  it  was  carried  into 
battle,  the  rest  when  it  was  brought  back  to  the  sanctuary. 
The  principal  objection  to  assigning  it  to  the  period  of 
the  desert  wanderings  arises  from  the  fact  that  then  the 
people  advanced  to  overtake  the  ark;  the  ark  did  not 
return  to  the  people.''^^  On  the  other  hand,  the  custom 
of  carrying  the  ark  into  battle  seems  to  have  been  dis- 
continued after  it  had  been  deposited  in  the  temple  in 
Jerusalem.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  words 
reflect  conditions  in  the  pre-Solomonic  era,  when  the 
home  of  the  ark  was  at  Shiloh,  Nob,  or  some  other 
sanctuary. 

Two  other  passages  may  be  noted  which,  though  not 
in  the  Pentateuch,  were  at  one  time  a  part  of  JE.  ( 5 )  The 
Curse  of  Jericho.''^  Joshua  is  said  to  have  tried  to  pre- 
vent the  rebuilding  of  Jericho  by  uttering  this  curse  upon 
anyone  attempting  to  do  so.     In  i   Kings   16.  34  it  is 


'^Messages  of  the  Poets,  p.  319. 

"Num.  6.  24-26. 

^'G.  B.  Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  7i»  21;  Schmidt,  Messages  of  the 
Poets,  p.  320. 

"  Num.  10.  35,  36. 

"  The  ark  being  considered  the  symbol  of  the  presence  of  Yahweh, 
Y/ords  addressed  to  it  were  in  reality  addressed  to  Yahweh. 

"This  is  certainly  implied  in  verses  33ii. 

'*Josh.  6.  26. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  267 

reported  that  when,  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  the  city 
was  rebuilt  the  builder  suffered  the  calamity  threatened  in 
the  curse."^^  The  relation  of  the  two  passages  is  variously 
interpreted.  Some  assume  that  the  disaster  which  befell 
Hiel  gave  rise  to  the  curse  f^  others  believe  the  curse  to 
be  much  more  ancient  and  the  account  in  Kings  to  have 
been  colored  by  a  knowledge  of  the  curse,  which  came 
to  be  connected  with  Joshua  because  of  his  share  in  the 
destruction  of  the  city.'^'^  (6)  The  Standing  Still  of 
Sun  and  Moon."^^  The  celestial  bodies,  exhorted  to  aid 
in  the  destruction  of  Israel's  enemies,  heeded  the  request 
and  continued  to  shine  until  the  Israelite  armies  had 
completed  the  slaughter, '^^  The  poem  was  taken  by  the 
narrator  from  a  collection  of  songs  called  "The  Book 
of  Yashar,"  or  "The  Book  of  the  Upright,"  or  "Brave." 
Its  date  cannot  be  definitely  fixed ;  probably  it  was  written 
while  the  battle  was  still  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the 
people,  and  yet  sufficiently  removed  to  allow  the  story  of 
a  miraculous  prolongation  of  the  day  to  arise. 


"  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  Judg.  3.  13  and  2  Sam.  5.  10 
presuppose  the  existence  of  the  city  during  the  intervening  centuries. 
"  Schmidt,  Messages  of  the  Poets,  p.  351. 
"  Steuernagel,  Joshua,  in  loco. 
"Josh.  10.  12,  13. 
"Compare  Judg.  5.  20. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

ANCIENT  MATERIAL  EMBODIED  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

2.    Legal  Material 


CHAPTER  XVII 

ANCIENT  MATERIAL  EMBODIED  IN  THE 
PENTATEUCHAL  DOCUMENTS 

2.    Legal  Material 

The  Origin  and  Contents  of  the  Legal  System  of  the 
Hebrews.^  In  the  course  of  the  critical  study  of  the 
Pentateuch  the  origin  of  the  legal  portions  has  received 
considerable  attention;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  narra- 
tive sections,  questions  have  arisen  regarding  the  relia- 
bility of  traditional  views  on  the  subject.  "The  tradi- 
tional view  of  the  religion  of  Israel  represented  Moses  as 
the  giver  of  an  ethical  and  ritual  law  of  a  highly  developed 
and  complex  nature,  centuries  in  advance  of  his  time,  a 
law  so  high  in  its  ethical  character  that,  for  the  most 
part,  it  is  applicable  to-day,  in  spite  of  the  wonderful 
advance  in  morals  since  Moses's  time;  a  ritual  law  so 
complicated  that,  even  after  the  nation  turned  into  a 
church,  in  the  period  following  the  exile,  there  were  still 
portions  of  that  ritual  which  were  impracticable  of 
execution."  ^ 

There  appears  to  be  no  good  reason  for  doubting  that, 
whatever  the  inheritance  from  other  ages  and  peoples 
may  have  been,  the  beginnings  of  the  distinctively  Hebrew 

^  Practically  the  entire  legal  system  of  the  Hebrews  is  embodied 
in  the  books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy; 
outside  of  the  Pentateuch  the  most  important  piece  of  legislation 
is  Ezek.  40-48. 

'J.  P.  Peters,  The  Religion  of  Moses,  in  Journal  of  Biblical 
Literature,  XXI,  ii,  p.  loi.  Compare  also  The  Religion  of  the 
Hehrezvs,  p.  81. 

271 


272  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

system  of  laws,  in  all  its  aspects — judicial,  moral,  and 
religious — may  be  traced  to  the  activity  and  influence  of 
Moses.  It  was  he  who  proclaimed  Yahweh  to  be  the 
one  and  only  God  of  Israel,  and  Israel  to  be  the  peculiar 
people  of  Yahweh;  and  in  order  to  maintain  and  per- 
petuate the  new  relationship  it  became  incumbent  upon 
him  somehow  to  regulate  the  relation  of  the  people,  as  a 
religious  unit,  to  their  God,  and  of  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  nation  to  one  another  and  to  the  community 
as  a  whole.  Out  of  this  need  grew  a  demand  for  the 
creation  or  adaptation  of  a  ceremonial  system,  moral 
precepts,  and  judicial  laws,  by  which  the  life  and  conduct 
of  the  people  could  be  governed.^  But  while  there  is 
general  agreement  that  Moses  was  the  originator  of  the 
law-giving  or  law-making  movement  that  culminated  in 
the  legal  system — if  it  may  be  called  such — in  the  Penta- 
teuch, scholars  are  also  agreed  that  this  system  in  its 
present  form  cannot  come  from  him.  While  engaged  in 
the  study  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  they  discovered 
in  the  legal  portions,  as  in  the  narrative  sections,  repe- 
titions and  discrepancies,  and  differences  in  religious  con- 
ception, language,  style,  and  scope,  which  led  them  to  con- 
clude that  the  complicated  legal  system  embodied  in  the 
Pentateuch  was  in  reality  a  compilation  of  material  taken 
from  several  originally  independent  codes,  formulated  in 
successive  periods  of  Hebrew  history.  This  conclusion 
was  confirmed  by  a  more  searching  analysis  of  the  history 
of  Israel  and  of  the  other  Old  Testament  books,  which 
study  also  furnished  the  means  of  tracing  through  its  suc- 
cessive stages  the  gradual  development  of  Hebrew  law.'* 


*For  the  opinion  of   scholars  that   Moses   is  the  originator  of 
Hebrew  Torah,  see  further,  above,  p.  90. 

♦See   further,  above,   Chapters  IX,   X,   XIII-XV. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  273 

Five  distinct  groups  of  laws  or  commandments  may  be 
discovered  in  the  Pentateuch:  (i)  The  Decalogue;  (2) 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant;  (3)  the  Deuteronomic  Code; 
(4)  the  Holiness  Code;  (5)  the  Priestly  Code.  Allowing 
for  the  possibility  of  minor  additions  at  later  times,  these 
codes  are  commonly  thought  to  have  been  compiled  during 
the  following  periods : 

The  Decalogue — in  some  form,  in  the  age  of  Moses. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant — in  the  period  of  the 
Judges  or  of  the  early  monarchy;  certainly  before  the 
appearance  of  the  eighth-century  prophets. 

The  Deuteronomic  Code — during  the  seventh  century, 
preceding  the  reform  movement  under  Josiah. 

The  Holiness  Code — in  the  early  years  of  the  exile. 

The  Priestly  Code — in  the  closing  years  of  the  exile 
and  the  early  post-exilic  period. 

The  origin  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code  is  discussed  in 
Chapter  XII,  and  that  of  the  Priestly  Code,  which,  joined 
with  the  Priestly  History,  represents  one  of  the  four 
Pentateuchal  Documents,  in  Chapters  XIII-XV,  in  con- 
nection with  the  chronological  order  and  date  of  the 
other  documents.  The  remaining  three  codes,  however, 
came  into  the  Pentateuch  only  as  parts  of  larger 
documents;  they  were  in  existence  as  completed  codes 
V  hen  these  documents  were  written ;  they  and  their  origin, 
therefore,  must  be  considered  in  the  discussion  of  the 
legal  material  embodied  in  the  Pentateuchal  Documents. 

The  Decalogue.  The  Decalogue,  in  some  form, 
probably  represents  the  earliest  attempt  among  the 
Hebrews  to  formulate  a  brief  and  easily  remembered 
legal  code,  in  which  were  included  the  precepts  forming 
the  basis  of  their  religious  and  community  life.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  for  doubting  that  such  a  Decalogue  was 


274  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

given  to  the  people  by  Moses.  "Tradition,"  says  C.  F. 
Kent,  resting  probably  on  an  ultimate  basis  of  fact, 
assigns  their^  origin  to  Moses  and  the  mount  of  revela- 
tion" f  and  again,  "There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that 
through  Israel's  first  great  prophet  there  was  transmitted 
a  primitive  Decalogue — and  possibly  several — which 
defined  in  ten  brief  sentences  the  nation's  obligations  to 
its  God."  ' 

Differences  of  opinion  arise  as  soon  as  the  inquiry 
turns  to  the  contents  of  the  Mosaic  Decalogue.  The 
group  of  commandments  commonly  designated  the  Deca- 
logue appears  in  two  recensions,  differing  in  details,  the 
one  in  Exod.  20.  1-17,  the  other  in  Deut.  5.  6-21  (Heb. 
6-18).  In  both  cases  some  of  the  commandments  have 
received  certain  hortatory  additions.  In  its  original  form 
the  Decalogue  reproduced  in  the  two  passages  may  have 
read: 

1.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  beside  me. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  a  graven  image. 

3.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  Yahweh,  thy  God, 
in  vain, 

4.  Remember  the  sabbath  day  to  hallow  it. 

5.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

6.  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness. 
10.  Thou  shalt  not  covet. 

Is  this  the  Mosaic  Decalogue  ?  Kent  is  convinced  that 
"the  familiar  prophetic  Decalogue  of  Exod.  20.  1-17  was 

•  He  is  referring  to  the  origin  of  the  "original  ten  words." 
'Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  23. 
'  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  29. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  275 

substituted  by  a  late  prophetic  editor  for  the  older  Deca- 
logue of  Exod.  34."®  Moreover,  he  believes  the  Decalogue 
in  Exod.  34®  to  have  been  preceded  by  an  earlier  one, 
and  this  earlier  one  to  have  originated  during  the  period 
of  the  United  Monarchy,  which  would  mean  a  relatively 
late  date  for  the  Decalogue  in  Exod.  20  and  Deut.  5. 
And  Kent  assigns  the  latter  Decalogue  to  a  late  date, 
for  he  holds  that  the  teaching  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and 
Isaiah  underlies  "this  noble  prophetic  Decalogue"  •,^^  and 
this  opinion  is  shared  by  many  modern  scholars.^  ^  The 
evidence  upon  which  this  conclusion  is  based  is  chiefly 
internal,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  statement  of  Addis: 
"The  Elohist  document  (perhaps  a  later  edition  of  it)  is 
our  earliest  external  witness,  and  that  does  not  carry  us 
back  beyond  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  Nor 
does  internal  evidence  point  to  a  much  earlier  time.  The 
character  of  the  Decalogue;,  which  is  not  ritual,  but  almost 
purely  moral;  the  prohibition  of  images,  apparently  un- 
known to  Elijah  and  Elisha ;  the  refinement  which  forbids 
thoughts  of  covetousness  (the  Hebrew  cannot  fairly  be 
taken  otherwise)  all  lend  support  to  the  view  that  the 
Decalogue  is  grounded  on  the  teaching  of  the  great 
prophets  of  whose  discourses  we  have  written  records. 
It  has  been  compared  with  the  loftier  teaching  in  Mic. 
6.  6-8,  and  may  belong  to  the  same  age;  that  is,  at  earliest 
that  of  Manasseh."  ^^  W.  R.  Harper  and  other  scholars 
maintain  that,  historically  interpreted,  the  Ten  Command- 


*  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  17. 

*  See,  further,  below,  p.  278. 
^"Beginnings  of  Hebrew  History,  p.  182. 

"  See  articles  on  Decalogue  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
and  in  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  where  numerous  authorities  are  cited. 
^*  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Decalogue." 


276  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ments  do  not  necessarily  presuppose  so  late  a  date;  he 
believes  that  the  "prophetic"  Decalogue  in  its  completed 
form  may  be  assigned  to  "a  period  not  much  later  than 
B.  C.  750."^^  Another  group  of  scholars  insists  that  there 
is  really  nothing  in  the  "ten  words" — as  preserved  in 
expanded  form  in  Exod.  20  and  Deut.  5 — that  would 
militate  against  belief  in  Mosaic  authorship. ^^ 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  chief,  though  perhaps 
not  the  only,  difficulty  arises  in  connection  with  the  second 
commandment,  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  a  graven 
image."  Says  E.  Kautzsch :  "There  would  be  no  valid 
reason  for  refusing  to  attribute  to  Moses  himself  a 
primitive,  concise  form  of  the  Decalogue,  were  it  not 
for  the  formidable  difficulty  presented  by  the  prohibition 
of  the  use  of  images.  Down  to  the  eighth  century  no 
one  seems  to  be  acquainted  with  so  categorical  a  com- 
mand that  images  of  Yahweh  are  not  to  be  made."  ^^ 
But  even  this  difficulty  does  not  seem  to  be  insurmount- 
able. Koenig,  for  example,  after  a  lengthy  discussion  of 
the  whole  subject  reaches  the  conclusion  that  there  is 
abundant  evidence  to  prove  that  from  the  very  beginning 
the  legitimate  Yahweh  religion  was  opposed  to  the  use 
of  images  as  representations  of  Yahweh;  and  he  can 
see  no  reason  whatever  for  denying  the  Decalogue  of 


^^  Amos  and  Hosea,  p.  Ixii. 

"J.  P.  Peters,  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  XXI,  ii,  pp.  loiflf. ; 
The  Religion  of  the  Hebrews,  chap.  IV ;  E.  Sellin,  Einleitung  in  das 
Alte  Testament,  p.  23 ;  E.  Koenig,  Gesch.  der  alttest.  Religion,  p.  148, 
where  other  authorities  advocating  the  same  view  are  named. 

"Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  extra  vol.,  p.  634.  Eerdmans 
escapes  the  difficulty  by  assuming  that  only  seven  of  the  ten  words 
came  from  Moses  (Theo.  Tidjschrift,  xxxvii,  pp.  i8ff.)  ;  but  there  is 
insufficient  ground  for  believing  that  the  original  collection  con- 
tained only  seven  words. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  277 

Exod.  20  and  Deut.  5  in  its  original  form  to  Moses.^® 
Internal  evidence,  therefore,  does  not  seem  to  be  decisive. 
Another  serious  difficulty  arises  from  the  presence  in 
Exod.  34.  10-28  of  what  appears  to  be  another  Deca- 
logue ;  at  any  rate,  the  precepts  in  that  chapter  are  called 
"the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  words,"  and  are  said 
to  have  been  written  upon  two  tables.  ^'^  The  Decalogue 
in  chapter  34  is  a  part  of  J ;  and  is  thought  by  some  to 
correspond  to  the  Decalogue  in  Exod.  20,  which  is 
thought  to  have  been  preserved  by  E.  Which  means  that 
those  who  assign  the  latter  Decalogue  to  the  seventh 
century  cannot  connect  it  with  the  original  E,  written  a 
century  earlier,  but  at  most  with  a  later  recension  or 
revision  of  E,  leaving  the  original  E  without  an  organ- 
ized Decalogue.  Now,  further  investigation  has  led  to 
the  discovery  within  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  of  re- 
quirements corresponding  to  those  in  Exod.  34,  from 
which  the  inference  has  been  drawn  that  these  laws,^^ 
though  widely  separated  at  present,  originally  constituted 
the  Decalogue  preserved  by  E.  In  other  words,  Exod.  34 
is  thought  to  contain  the  J  recension  and  the  verses 
indicated  in  Exod.  20,  22,  23,  the  E  recension  of  an 
early  Decalogue.  The  Decalogues  in  Exod.  20:  1-17 
and  Deut.  5  would,  then,  be  still  later  developments  in- 
spired by  the  teaching  of  the  great  eighth-century 
prophets.^® 


'"  Geschichte  der  alttest.  Religion,  pp.  20off. ;  he  is  supported  in 
this  by  other  scholars,  some  of  whom  are  named  on  p.  222.  Compare 
also  R.  Kittel,  History  of  the  Hebrews  (English  translation),  i, 
pp.  248,  249. 

"  Verse  28. 

"Exod.  20.  23;  22.  29-31;  23.  12-19. 

"  See  J.  P.  Peters,  The  Religion  of  the  Hebrews,  chap,  iv,  espe- 
cially pp.  97,  98. 


278  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  exact  wording  of  the  Decalogue  in  Exod.  34  is 
not  easily  determined,  for  the  code  as  there  preserved 
contains  at  least  twelve  precepts.  J.  Wellhausen  suggests 
the  following  arrangement  :^**  which  is  accepted  by  many 
scholars, 

1.  Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  God. 

2.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  God. 

3.  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 

4.  All  the  first-born  are  mine. 

5.  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  weeks. 

6.  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the 
end  of  the  year. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  ojffer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with 
leaven. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  retain  until  the  morning  the  fat 
of  my  feast. 

9.  Thou  shalt  bring  the  best  of  the  first  fruits  of  the 
field  to  the  house  of  Yahweh  thy  God. 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk. 
This  reconstruction  is  based  exclusively  on  Exod.  34; 
Kent,  on  the  basis  of  Exod.  34  and  the  relevant  verses 
in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  seeks  to  restore  the  Deca- 
logue underlying  the  J  and  E  recensions;  which  differs 
sHghtly  from  the  above  :^^ 

1.  Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  God. 

2.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods. 

3.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  observe. 

4.  Every  first-born  is  mine. 

5.  Six  days  shalt  thou  toil,  and  on  the  seventh  thou 
shalt  rest.^^ 


^"Composition  of  the  Hexateuch,  p.  333. 
'^^  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  21, 
"  Omitted  by  Wellhausen, 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  279 

6.  Thou  shalt  observe  the  feasts  of  weeks  and  in- 
gathering at  the  end  of  the  year.^^ 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with 
leaven. 

8.  The  fat  of  my  feast  shall  not  be  left  until  morning. 

9.  The  best  of  the  firstfruits  of  thy  land  shalt  thou 
bring  to  the  house  of  Yahweh. 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk. 

This  Decalogue  undoubtedly  bears  a  more  primitive 
aspect  than  the  one  in  Exod,  20;  moreover,  its  precepts 
are  in  perfect  accord  with  what  is  known  of  the  nature 
and  character  of  primitive  religion  in  general.  G.  F. 
Moore,  therefore,  calls  the  Decalogue  in  Exod.  34  "the 
earliest  attempt  with  which  we  are  acquainted  to  embody 
in  a  series  of  brief  injunctions  formulated  as  divine 
commands  the  essential  observances  of  the  religion  of 
Yahweh.  .  .  .  Religion  seems  to  be  as  yet  untouched 
by  the  prophetic  movement  whose  burden  was  that  what 
God  demands  is  not  worship  but  righteousness."  ^*  The 
background  of  at  least  some  of  the  precepts  being  clearly 
agricultural,^^  the  origin  of  this  Decalogue  in  written 
form  is  assigned  by  most  scholars  to  the  period  after 
the  settlement  in  Canaan;  but  there  is  no  agreement  re- 
garding the  exact  date.  Kent  expresses  the  opinion  that 
"it  was  promulgated  at  least  as  early  as  the  days  of  the 
united  monarchy,"  ^^  and  more  specifically,  that  "the 
primitive  ten  words  were  not  put  in  written  form  until 
the  reign  of  Solomon  and  in  connection  with  the  royal 
sanctuary  reared  by  him"  f^  others  date  it  as  late  as  the 

^'A  combination  of  5  and  6  in  Wellhausen's  arrangement. 

^*  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Exodus." 

""  See  especially  5,  6,  9  in  Wellhausen's  list,  6  and  9  in  Kent's. 

^^  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  21, 

*Ubid..  p.  23. 


28o  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

eighth  century.^®  The  commonly  accepted  theory  is  that 
this  primitive  Decalogue  was  inserted  in  both  J  and  E; 
subsequently,  under  the  influence  of  prophetic  teaching 
the  "prophetic"  Decalogue  was  formed,  taking  as  its 
starting  point  the  earher  ten  words ;  at  a  still  later  time, 
the  "prophetic"  Decalogue  was  substituted  in  E,  perhaps 
by  a  Judahite  redactor,  for  the  older  Decalogue,  after 
Exod.  19.  20-25,  while  the  provisions  of  the  older  Deca- 
logue were  transferred  to  their  present  positions  within 
the  limits  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

While  this  explanation  of  the  origin  and  mutual  rela- 
tion of  the  several  Decalogues  is  reasonable  and  in  accord 
with  the  general  development  of  the  theological  and 
ethical  thought  of  the  Hebrews,  the  case  of  the  defenders 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Decalogue  in  Exod.  20 — 
aside  from  the  hortatory  additions — is  by  no  means  as 
hopeless  as  some  appear  to  think.  True,  the  suggestion 
that  the  requirements  in  Exod.  34  are  nothing  more  than 
recollections  of  some  of  the  precepts  in  the  "prophetic 
Decalogue  and  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,"  ^^  fails  to 
do  justice  to  the  facts;  nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  available  data  are  hardly  sufficient  to  answer  all 
questions  and  solve  all  problems  connected  with  the  origin 
and  the  mutual  relation  of  the  several  Decalogues. 
Moreover,  the  existence  of  the  "prophetic"  Decalogue  as 
the  original  charter  of  the  covenant  between  Yahweh 
and  Israel  w'ould  furnish  an  adequate  explanation  of 
the  physical  and  spiritual  vigor  and  vitality  that  gave  to 


^'As  has  been  stated,  the  requirements  themselves  and  the  deca- 
logue form  may  go  back  to  Moses,  but  in  the  beginning  they  were 
"simply  inscribed  on  the  popular  memory." 

"  Sellin,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  25 ;  compare  also 
Peters,  Religion  of  the  Hebrews,  p.  97,  note  2. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  281 

the  Hebrews  final  victory  over  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan 
and  of  the  distinctively  ethical  ton©  of  Hebrew  religion 
as  proclaimed  by  its  leaders  from  the  time  of  Moses  on. 
It  may  be  wise,  therefore,  to  heed  the  words  of  R.  L. 
Ottley:  'The  facts  as  they  stand  are  perplexing,  and 
justify  a  suspension  of  judgment.  It  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  Decalogue  in  its  present  form  bears 
traces  of  expansion  in  prophetic  times;  at  the  same  time 
it  lays  down  principles  of  morality  which  are  so  elemen- 
tary as  to  be  strictly  consistent  with  what  we  know  of 
the  condition  of  Israel  in  Mosaic  times.  It  is  difficult  to 
see  what  other  precepts  could  have  been  better  adapted 
to  lift  the  Hebrews  above  the  degraded  nature  religion  of 
their  heathen  neighbors,  to  teach  them  the  true  character 
of  their  divine  Deliverer,  and  to  educate  them  in  the 
rudiments  of  social  justice  and  humanity."  ^^ 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant.si  Xhis  group  of  laws  owes 
its  title  to  Exod.  24.  7,  which,  in  referring  to  it,  uses  the 
expression  "book  of  the  covenant."  That  it  is  meant  to 
serve  as  the  charter  of  a  covenant  is  suggested  also  by  the 
promises  made  to  those  who  obey  its  provisions.^^  The 
laws  contained  in  the  collection  comprise  two  elements: 
"the  words"  and  "the  ordinances"  or  "judgments"  of 
Yahweh.^^  They  deal  with  a  variety  of  subjects;  as 
they  stand  at  present  the  transitions  are  frequently  abrupt, 


°''  The  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  36. 

^^  The  law  code  proper  extends  from  Exod.  20.  22  to  23.  19 ;  in- 
cluding the  exhortations  and  promises  it  extends  to  23.  33. 

''23.  20-33. 

^Exod.  24.  3.  The  "ordinances,"  all  stated  hypothetically,  are 
found  in  21.  i  to  22.  17,  2Sa,  26;  23.  4,  5;  the  "words,"  in  the  nature 
of  direct  commands,  occupy  the  rest  of  the  book  down  to  23.  19; 
the  succeeding  verses,  as  already  stated,  containing  promises  to  those 
who  live  in  harmony  with  the  preceding  commandments. 


282  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

and  numerous  adjustments  are  necessary  to  make  a 
systematic  arrangement  possible.  Many  modern  scholars 
hold  that  originally  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was 
arranged  on  the  principle  of  the  Decalogue;  that  is,  the 
code  in  its  original  form  is  thought  to  have  consisted, 
not,  like  the  Decalogue,  of  ten  individual  commandments, 
but  of  ten  complete  Decalogues,  each  divisible  into  two 
groups  of  five  individual  laws.  Corresponding  to  the  two 
tables  of  the  Decalogue,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  has 
further  been  divided  into  two  groups,  each  consisting  of 
five  related  Decalogues:  (i)  Judgments — dealing  with 
civil  and  criminal  cases;  (2)  Religious  and  Humane 
Laws.^*  By  transferring  a  few  verses  from  Deuter- 
onomy it  becomes  possible  to  reconstruct  the  five  Deca- 
logues of  the  first  group;  of  the  second  only  four 
Decalogues  can  be  found,  and  though  traces  of  a  fifth 
may  be  discovered,  there  is  no  way  of  restoring  it. 
Kent's  outline  of  the  code  is  as  follows: 

1.    Judgments 
First  Decalogue:  The  Rights  of  Slaves 

First  Pentad— Males,  Exod.  21.  2,  3a,  3b,  4,  5-6. 
Second  Pentad— Females,  Exod.  21.  7,  8,  9,  10,  11. 

Second  Decalogue:  Assaults 
First  Pentad — Capital  Offenses,  Exod.  21.  12,  13,  14, 

15,  16. 

Second  Pentad— Minor  Offenses,  Exod.  21.  18-19,  20, 

21,  26,  27. 

^*A  full  discussion  of  this  rearrangement  is  found  in  C.  F.  Kent. 
Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  pp.  26flf.,  where  mention  is 
made  of  some  of  the  scholars  who  have  contributed  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  theory. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  283 

Third  Decalogue:  Laws  Regarding  Domestic  Animals 

First  Pentad — Injuries  by  Animals,  Exod.  21.  28,  29, 

3O'  31.  32. 

Second  Pentad — Injuries  to  Animals,  Exod.  21.  33-34, 

35,  36;  22.  I,  4. 

Fourth  Decalogue:  Responsibility  for  Property 

First  Pentad — In  General,  Exod.  22.  5,  6,  7,  8,  9. 

Second  Pentad — In  Cattle,  Exod.  22.  lo-ii,  13,  14, 
15a,  15b. 

Fifth  Decalogue:  Social  Purity 

First  Pentad — Adultery,  Deut.  22.  13-19,  20-21,  22, 
23-24,  25-27. 

Second  Pentad — Fornication  and  Apostasy,  Exod.  22. 
16,  17,  18,  19,  20. 

II.    Ceremonial  and  Humane  Laws 
First  Decalogue:  Kindness 

First  Pentad — Toward  Men,  Exod.  22.  21a,  22-2^, 
25a,  25b,  26-27. 

Second  Pentad — Toward  Animals,  Exod.  23.  4  (Deut. 
22.  i) ;  22.  2,  3;  23.  5  (Deut.  22.  4) ;  22.  6-7. 

Second  Decalogue:  Justice 

First  Pentad — Among  Equals,  Exod.  2;^.  la,  ib,  2a, 
2b,  3. 

Second  Pentad — On  the  Part  of  Those  in  Authority, 
Exod.  23.  6,  7a,  7b,  7c,  8. 

Third  Decalogue:  Duties  to  God 
First  Pentad— Worship,  Exod.  20.  23a,  23b,  24,  25,  26. 


284  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Second  Pentad — Loyalty,  Exod.  22.  28,  29a,  29b, 
30,  31- 

Fourth  Decalogue:  Sacred  Seasons 

First  Pentad — Command  to  Observe  them,  Exod.  23. 
lo-ii,  12,  15a,  i6a,  i6b. 

Second  Pentad — Method  of  Observing  them,  Exod. 
23.  17,  1 8a,  1 8b,  19a,  i9b.^^ 

The  date  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  a  matter  of 
dispute.  The  statements  in  Exod.  23.  iff.  imply  Mosaic 
authorship,^^  and  this  is  accepted  by  some  recent  writers. ^^ 
But  since  it  is  generally  admitted  that  chapter  24  reflects 
simply  the  view  of  the  later  editor  who  is  responsible  for 
the  present  position  of  the  code,  its  testimony  cannot  be 
considered  absolutely  final.  Even  Sellin  feels  at  liberty  to 
reject  the  statement  that  the  code  was  given  on  Mount 
Sinai ;  he  interprets  it  as  the  law  given  by  Moses  shortly 
before  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan;  and  he  thinks  that  at 
one  time  it  preceded  Deut.  2y,  from  which  position  it 
was  displaced  subsequently  by  the  Deuteronomic  Code. 

In  the  absence  of  sufficient  external  evidence  the  ques- 
tion must  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  internal  evidence 
and  other  more  general  considerations.  Now  it  seems 
incredible  that   Moses   should  have  settled  all  disputes 


"^  If  the  whole  of  chap.  20  could  be  included  in  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  the  "prophetic"  Decalogue  in  verses  1-17  would  supply 
the  missing  Decalogue;  but  this  Decalogue  is  so  different  from  the 
rest  of  the  book  and  offers  so  many  parallels  to  it,  that  it  cannot 
be  so  regarded.  It  is  not  impossible,  however,  that  its  presence  may 
be  responsible  for  the  omission  of  one  Decalogue  from  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  and  thus,  for  the  practical  substitution  of  this 
one  for  the  other. 

*°  Though,  perhaps,  only  in  the  sense  discussed  above,  p.  90. 

"'Sellin,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  pp.  23,  24;  Koenig, 
Geschichte  der  alttest.  Religion,  p.  148. 


Ancient  material  285 

brought  before  him  simply  by  reference  to  the  Decalogue, 
whatever  its  original  form  and  contents  may  have  been ; 
he  must  have  made  his  decisions  more  specific;  and  if  so, 
it  is  very  probable  that  at  least  some  of  these  decisions 
v^^ere  written  down  for  the  guidance  of  succeeding  genera- 
tions. Moreover,  some  of  the  provisions  now  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  are  quite  suitable  for  that  early 
age.  On  the  other  hand,  the  code  as  a  whole  seems  to 
reflect  a  somewhat  more  advanced  stage  of  civilization. 
"The  society  contemplated  in  it  is  of  very  simple  struc- 
ture. The  basis  of  life  is  agricultural.  Cattle  and  agri- 
cultural produce  are  the  main  elements  of  wealth ;  and 
the  laws  of  property  deal  almost  exclusively  with  them. 
The  principles  of  criminal  and  civil  justice  are  those  still 
current  among  the  Arabs  of  the  desert,  namely,  retalia- 
tion and  pecuniary  compensation.  Murder  is  dealt  with 
by  the  law  of  blood  revenge;  but  the  distinction  is  drawn 
between  murder  and  manslaughter,  and  the  innocent  man- 
slayer  may  seek  an  asylum  at  God's  altar  (21.  13,  14). 
With  murder  are  ranked  man-stealing,  offenses  against 
parents,  and  witchcraft.  Other  injuries  are  occasions  of 
self-help,  or  of  private  suits  to  be  adjusted  at  the  sanc- 
tuary (22.  9).  Personal  injuries  fall  under  the  law  of 
retaliation,  just  as  murder  does.  A  blow  for  a  blow  is 
still  the  law  of  the  Arabs;  and  in  Canaan,  no  doubt,  as 
in  the  desert,  the  retaliation  was  usually  sought  in  the 
way  of  self-help.  Except  in  this  form,  there  is  no  pun- 
ishment, but  only  compensation,  which  in  some  cases 
is  at  the  will  of  the  injured  party,  but  in  general  is 
defined  by  law.  Degrading  punishments  are  unknown, 
and  loss  of  liberty  is  inflicted  only  upon  the  thief  who 
cannot  pay  a  fine  (22.3).  Definite  rights  are  secured  for 
the  slave.     He  recovers  his  freedom  after  seven  years, 


286  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

unless  he  prefers  to  remain  a  bondman,  and  seals  solemnly 
his  determination  at  the  door  of  the  sanctuary.  His 
right  of  blood  revenge  against  his  master  is,  however, 
limited  (21.  20,  21) ;  though  instead  of  the  lex  talionis 
for  minor  injuries,  he  can  claim  his  liberty  (21.  26,  27). 
Women  do  not  enjoy  full  social  equality  with  men. 
Women  slaves  are  slaves  for  life,  but  were  often,  it  may 
be  inferred,  married  to  members  or  servants  of  the 
family  (21.  4,  7-9).  The  daughter  was  her  father's 
property  (21.  7),  who  received  a  price  for  surrendering 
her  to  a  husband;  and  so  a  daughter's  dishonor  was 
compensated  by  law  as  a  pecuniary  loss  to  her  father 
(22.  16,  17)."  ^« 

Evidently,  the  state  of  society  reflected  in  the  code  is 
exceedingly  simple;  and  yet  it  seems  in  advance  of  con- 
ditions in  the  days  of  Moses.  True,  it  is  not  impossible 
to  think  of  Moses  as  giving  laws  suitable  for  an  environ- 
ment more  advanced  than  the  one  in  which  he  lived, 
especially  since  he  must  have  looked  forward  to  the 
settlement  in  Canaan,  when  the  people's  mode  of  living 
would  necessarily  undergo  a  change  ;^9  nevertheless,  it 
is  unquestionably  more  natural  to  explain  the  laws  as 
arising  out  of  present  needs  of  the  people  for  whom 
they  were  intended.  This  being  the  case,  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  may  be  described  as  a  collection  of  Mosaic 
decisions,  modified  and  expanded  in  accord  with  the 
needs  of  later  generations. 

But  it  is  difficult  to  say  at  what  period  subsequently 
to  Moses  it  assumed  the  form  in  which  it  was  embodied 
in  one  of  the   Pentateuchal   documents.     That  it   was 


^*W.  R.  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  2nd 
ed.,  pp.  336ff. 

^'  Koenig,  Geschichte  der  alttest.  Religion,  p.  149. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  287 

prior  to  the  time  of  Amos  is  beyond  question;*^  but  it 
is  no  easy  task  to  locate  it  more  definitely  between  the 
age  of  Moses  and  the  age  of  the  eighth-century  prophets. 
There  is  no  convincing  reason  for  bringing  it  down 
beyond  the  age  of  the  Judges;  nevertheless,  Kent, 
followed  by  other  scholars,  believes  that  he  has  excellent 
reasons  for  saying:  'These^^  represent,  therefore,  the 
growth  of  Israel's  laws  and  institutions  from  the  early 
period,  about  11 50,  to  about  B.  C.  750,  when  Amos 
and  Hosea  and  Isaiah  appeared  as  the  heralds  of  a  new 
era  in  the  political  and  religious  life  of  the  Hebrew 
race."  ^^ 

The  Law  of  Holiness.^^  Peculiarities  of  form,  con- 
tents, and  expression  have  convinced  modern  scholars 
that  Lev.  17-26  existed  at  one  time  as  an  independent 
code.***  The  designation  "Law  of  HoHness,"  *^  first 
suggested  by  Klostermann,  finds  justification  in  the 
fact  that  the  central  theme  of  the  whole  code  is  holiness, 
moral  and  ceremonial.  Its  motto  is:  "Ye  shall  be  holy: 
for  I  Jehovah  am  holy";*®  and  one  of  its  striking  char- 
acteristics is  the  impressive  refrain,  "I  am  Jehovah," 
which  occurs  forty-six  times. 


"W.  R.  Harper,  Amos  and  Hosea,  p.  Ixviii. 

"  Exod.  20.  23  to  23.  19 ;  34. 

*^  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  30. 

"Lev.  17-26. 

"  It  is  not  improbable  that  originally  the  code  was  more  exten- 
sive than  it  is  now.  Some  of  its  laws  may  have  been  omitted  by 
the  redactor  who  made  H  (=Law  of  Holiness)  a  part  of  the 
Priestly  Code;  others  may  have  been  transferred  to  other  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch;  for  example,  the  food  laws  in  Lev.  11,  and  the 
law  concerning  fringes,  in  Num.  15.  37-41. 

"Heiligkeitsgesetz;  see  Zeitschrift  fucr  Lutherische  Theologie, 
^^77,  PP-  401  ff. 

"19.  2;  compare  22.  31-33- 


288  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  attempts 
have  been  made  to  subdivide  the  Law  of  HoHness  into 
a  series  of  Decalogues,*'^  but  such  an  arrangement  neces- 
sitates in  many  instances  a  disregard  of  the  present  order. 
The  code  deals  with  a  variety  of  topics ;  it  is  noteworthy, 
however,  that  it  lays  much  less  stress  upon  civil  and 
criminal  laws  than  upon  moral  and  ceremonial  require- 
ments. The  more  important  subjects  covered  in  the  laws 
are:  The  slaughter  of  animals  and  sacrifice,*^  unchastity 
and  Moloch  worship,*^  religious  and  moral  behavior,^*^ 
penalties  for  Moloch  worship,  unlawful  marriage,  and 
other  offenses,^'-  regulations  touching  priests  and  offer- 
ings,^^ the  sacred  seasons,^^  the  lights  of  the  sanctuary, 
the  showbread,  the  blasphemer  and  his  punishment,^* 
the  sabbatic  year  and  the  year  of  jubilee.^^  The  code 
closes  with  a  hortatory  address,  emphasizing  the  funda- 
mental duty  of  loyalty  to  Yahweh  and  his  commands.^® 
It  is  within  the  bounds  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  that 
Old  Testament  legislation  reaches  its  noblest  expression, 
in  the  command:  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself."  " 

The  individual  laws  did  not  originate  with  the  com- 
piler of  the  code.  Internal  evidence — for  example,  dif- 
ferences in  the  form  of  laws  dealing  with  the  same  or 
kindred  subjects — makes  it  probable  that  the  author  of 
the  code  had  access  to  earlier  collections,  which  may 
have  been  made  at  different  times  and  places  and  in 
different  priestly  circles.     No  doubt  he  may  have  formu- 

"L.  B.  Paton,  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  1897,  pp.  3^-37- 

"Chap.  17.  ^Chap.  23. 

"  Chap.  18.  "  Chap.  24. 

"  Chap.  19.  '"  Chap.  25. 

''  Chap.  20.  ''  Chap.  26. 

''  Chaps.  21,  22.  "  19.  18. 


ANCIENT  MATERIAL  289 

lated  and  inserted  new  laws,  but,  on  the  whole,  his  work 
was  that  of  adapting  older  laws  to  present  conditions,  of 
bringing  them  into  harmony  with  his  own  point  of  view, 
and  of  reenforcing  them  by  supplying  suitable  motives. 
Kent  is  undoubtedly  right  when,  in  speaking  of  these 
laws,  he  says,  ''Their  roots  are  probably  to  be  traced  to 
the  Mosaic  and  nomadic  periods  of  Israelitish  history."  ^^ 
In  language,  thought,  and  general  aim  the  Law  of 
Holiness  resembles  Ezekiel.^^  The  similarities  are, 
indeed,  so  striking  that  some  scholars  have  considered 
Ezekiel  the  author,  or  at  least  the  redactor,  of  the  code. 
That  there  are  remarkable  resemblances  cannot  be  denied ; 
it  is  equally  true,  as  other  scholars  have  pointed  out, 
that  there  are  such  obvious  differences  between  the  two 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  believe  that  they  came 
from  one  and  the  same  author.  Nevertheless,  the  simi- 
larities are  so  numerous  and  striking  that  they  cannot  be 
regarded  as  coincidence.  There  seems  to  be  some  rela- 
tionship, but  it  is  not  easy  to  answer  the  inquiry,  Was 
Ezekiel  influenced  by  the  Law  of  Holiness,  or  did  the 
compiler  of  that  code  write  under  the  influence  of  the 
thought  and  language  of  Ezekiel?  The  available  evidence 
is  so  slight  that  there  exists  wide  diversity  of  opinion 
on  this  point  among  scholars;  some  hold  to  the  priority 
of  Ezekiel,  especially  in  view  of  the  exhortations  in 
Lev.  26;  others,  and  they  are  in  the  majority,  favor  the 
priority  of  H.  G.  F.  Moore  assigns  the  code  to  the  half 
century   before   Ezekiel,®*^    and   Driver   thinks   that   the 

'^''Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  41. 

"Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  I45ff. ;  A.  T.  Chapman,  Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch,  Appen- 
dix V;  Carpenter  and  Harford,  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch, 
pp.  269ff. ;  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Leviticus." 

^Encyclopedia  Biblica,  vol.  iii,  col.  2791. 


290  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

author  or  compiler  may  have  been  a  priest-prophet  living 
toward  the  closing  years  of  the  monarchy.®^ 

That  would  bring  the  date  of  H  very  near  to  the  date 
of  D.  Now  Lev.  17.  4  might  be  interpreted  as  implying 
that  the  author  recognized  only  one  legitimate  sanctuary, 
which  would  favor  the  priority  of  D;  but,  unfortunately, 
the  word  translated  "the  tabernacle  (abode)  of"  is  gener- 
ally considered  a  later  addition ;  if  so,  the  original  "before 
Yahweh"  would  be  in  perfect  accord  with  the  earlier 
recognition  of  a  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries.  On  the 
whole,  however,  the  evidence  points  to  the  priority  of 
D;  the  priestly  interest  is  more  prominent  in  H  than 
in  D,  and  the  former  places  much  more  emphasis  on 
the  ritual  than  the  latter.  Hence  there  is  good  support 
for  the  view  that  "in  subject  matter  and  aim  H  stands 
midway  between  the  prophetic  codes  of  Deuteronomy 
and  the  priestly  codes  of  Ezekiel  and  the  later  writers 
who  place  the  emphasis  chiefly  upon  the  ceremonial.  .  .  . 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  original  draft  of  this 
code  was  made  between  the  first  and  final  captivity 
(B.  C.  597-586),  a  period  in  which  the  more  enlightened 
leaders,  like  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  saw  clearly  that  the 
state  was  doomed,  and  that  Israel's  laws  and  institutions, 
if  they  were  to  be  preserved,  must  be  put  into  written 
form."  «2 


*^  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  151. 
"  C.  F.  Kent,  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  41 ;  see  also 
below,  p.  305. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

The  earliest  literary  period  in  Israel,  as  among  other 
peoples,  was  preceded  by  an  age  of  song  and  story.  Some 
of  the  songs  considered  in  Chapter  XVI  may  be  assigned 
to  that  early  age,^  and  others,  not  preserved  in  the  Old 
Testament,  may  have  been  in  existence.^  These  songs, 
dealing  with  significant  incidents  and  events  in  the  history 
of  the  clan,  tribe,  or  nation,  and  with  the  heroic  deeds 
of  individuals,  were  highly  prized  and  frequently  re- 
peated both  by  the  common  people  and  by  professional 
singers.  In  the  course  of  time  collections  of  these  songs 
were  made,  two  of  which  are  referred  to  in  the  Old 
Testament.  "The  Book  of  the  Wars  (of  Yahweh),"^ 
mentioned  in  Num.  21.  14,  was  a  collection  of  songs 
commemorating  the  mighty  deeds  of  Yahweh  and  of  his 
people  in  connection  with  the  struggles  for  the  possession 
of  Palestine;  "The  Book  of  Yashar"  or  "the  Upright" 
is  mentioned  two  or  three  times.*  It  is  not  quite  clear 
whether  Israel  or  Yahweh  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  Up- 

'  The  Song  of  the  Sword,  Gen.  4.  23,  24;  the  Curse  of  Canaan, 
Gen.  9.  25-27;  the  Blessing  of  Jacob,  Gen.  49.  2-27;  the  Triumph 
Song  over  the  Downfall  of  the  Egyptians,  Exod.  15.  1-18;  the  poetic 
fragments  in  Num.  21;  the  Oracles  of  Balaam,  Num.  23,  24;  the 
Song  of  Moses,  Deut.  32;  the  Blessing  of  Moses,  Deut.  33. 

'  This  is  a  safe  inference  from  the  frequent  allusions  to  songs 
accompanying  banquets  and  other  festal  occasions;  for  example, 
Gen.  31.  27;  2  Sam.  19.  35;  Amos  6.  5;  Isa.  5.  12;  16.  10,  etc. 

*  See  above,  p.  259. 

*Josh.  10.  13;  2  Sam.  i.  18;  and,  perhaps,  1  Kings  8.  53. 

293 


294  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

right ;  in  either  case,  this  collection,  like  "the  Book  of 
the  Wars,"  seems  to  have  contained  songs  inspired  by 
incidents  in  the  early  history  of  the  people. 

Unfortunately,  only  a  few  of  the  early  songs  have 
been  preserved,  and  some  of  these  in  fragmentary  form. 
The  abbreviations  and  other  alterations — aside  from 
textual  corruptions — may,  perhaps,  be  traced  to  two 
causes  :  ( i )  As  long  as  the  individual  songs  or  the  collec- 
tions were  known  to  the  people  it  was  not  necessary  to 
embody  the  songs  in  their  entirety  in  the  historical 
records ;  brief  references  or  quotations  would  be  sufficient 
to  recall  the  whole  of  the  poem  as  found  in  the  song 
book.  (2)  The  later  literature  was  written  from  the 
standpoint  of  religion;  hence  everything  that  could  not 
be  accommodated  under  the  later  religious  point  of  view 
was  omitted.^ 

Alongside  of  these  songs  existed  stories  and  legends 
centering  around  important  persons  and  events.  *'We 
must  ascribe,"  says  E.  Kautzsch,  "to  an  actual  tradition, 
handed  down  from  the  preliterary  period,  the  largest 
part  of  the  matter  furnished  by  the  ancient  documentary 
sources  in  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.^  Some  of  this 
material  goes  back  to  early  pre-Mosaic  times.  For  in- 
stance, as  soon  as  men  learned  to  observe  the  phenomena 
of  nature  they  sought  answers  to  the  questions :  Whence 
came  the  world?  Whence  came  man?  How  did  evil 
and  death  come  into  the  world?  etc.  The  early  Semites, 
long  before  there  was  a  Hebrew  people,  furnished  answers 
to  these  inquiries.  When  the  ancestors  of  the  Hebrews 
separated   from   the   common   stock   they   carried   these 


E.  Kautzsch,  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  3. 
'Ibid.,  p.  6. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        295 

traditions  with  them;  then,  in  their  new  home,  they 
developed  them  and  impressed  upon  them  the  stamp  of 
their  own  national  and  religious  characteristics.  In  this 
manner  may  have  originated  and  grown  some  of  the 
stories  in  Gen.  i-ii. 

As  among  other  peoples,  so  among  the  families,  clans, 
and  tribes  out  of  which  developed  the  Hebrew  nation, 
stories  and  even  cycles  of  stories  grew  up,  centering 
around  prominent  ancestors,  especially  such  as  distin- 
guished themselves  in  battle  or  in  connection  with  other 
epoch-making  events.  These  stories  would  be  handed 
down  from  father  to  son,  or  from  family  to  family,  and 
they  might  be  told  and  retold  by  professional  story- 
tellers on  various  occasions,  even  outside  of  the  immediate 
circles  in  which  they  originated.  Some  of  the  patriarchal 
stories  may  be  of  this  nature.  The  most  significant  event 
in  early  Hebrew  history  was  the  Exodus  from  Egypt, 
which  furnished  an  immense  mass  of  new  material  to 
the  story-teller:  the  Hfe  and  activity  of  Moses,  the 
Exodus  and  the  events  connected  with  it,  the  desert 
wanderings,  the  entrance  into  Palestine  and  the  subse- 
quent conflicts  under  the  leadership  of  the  champions 
known  as  the  Judges.  After  the  occupation  of  Palestine 
the  Hebrews  assimilated  a  large  part  of  the  native  popu- 
lation and  rededicated  to  Yahweh  many  of  the  local 
shrines  and  sanctuaries.  Is  it  not  at  least  probable  that 
with  the  sanctuaries  many  of  the  traditions  that  had 
grown  up  around  the  sacred  places  were  taken  over  by 
the  invaders  until  gradually  they  became  a  part  of  their 
own  popular  traditions? 

But  in  time  the  new  religion  introduced  by  Moses 
permeated  all  the  earlier  stories,  whatever  their  origin 
and  original  home  may  have  been,  and  caused  various 


296  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

modifications  that  brought  them  into  Hne  with  the  newer 
and  higher  rehgious  conceptions.  In  all  probability  much 
of  this  material  continued  to  be  preserved  and  handed 
down  in  oral  form ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  impossible 
that  even  at  this  early  time  some  of  the  stories  assumed 
written  form. 

Moses  did  two  things  for  his  people:  (i)  He  suc- 
ceeded in  combining  the  heterogeneous  elements  into  a 
national  unity;  and  (2)  he  gave  to  this  unity  a  practical 
monotheism;  all  of  which  finds  expression  in  the  watch- 
word: "Yahweh  the  God  of  Israel,  Israel  the  people  of 
Yahweh."  But  to  place  this  work  upon  a  permanent 
basis  it  was  necessary  to  establish  a  political  organization, 
however  simple,  to  formulate  or  adapt  laws  for  the  pur- 
pose of  regulating  the  relation  of  the  people  to  their  God, 
and  of  the  individual  members  of  the  new  nation  to 
one  another,  and,  further,  to  introduce  various  institu- 
tions that  were  essential  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
religious,  social  and  political  life.  Some  of  the  laws 
and  regulations  given  by  Moses  may  well  have  found 
a  place  in  the  later,  and  more  complete,  legal  system  of 
the  Hebrews. 

The  entrance  into  Palestine  transformed  a  considerable 
number  of  the  Hebrew  nomads  and  seminomads  into 
agriculturists.  The  new  mode  of  living  produced  far- 
reaching  social  changes  and  consequently  necessitated  the 
adaptation  of  older  laws  to  the  new  conditions  and  the 
formulation  of  new  laws.  Moreover,  with  the  general 
advance  in  culture  and  civilization  reading  and  writing 
became  more  common  -^  and,  perhaps,  efforts  were  made, 
especially  at  the  sanctuaries,  to  preserve  in  more  per- 
manent form  the  songs  and  stories  of  the  past.     There 

'  Judg.  8.  14  implies  the  wide  prevalence  of  the  art  of  writing. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        297 

too  attempts  may  have  been  made  to  codify  the  legal 
decisions  handed  down  from  earlier  times.  The  Book 
of  the  Covenant  may  represent  such  a  collection. 

During  the  period  of  the  United  Monarchy  further 
advances  in  civilization  were  made.  There  were  new 
poetic  outbursts;  and  now,  for  the  first  time,  traces  of 
connected  prose  writing  appear.  The  earliest  efforts 
dealt  with  events  of  the  recent  past,  especially  with  those 
centering  around  Saul  and  David.  But  the  literary 
interest,  once  awakened,  continued  to  flourish  even  after 
the  division  of  the  kingdom  subsequently  to  the  death 
of  Solomon.  The  royal  annals,  begun  under  the  United 
Kingdom,  were  continued,  and  the  broader  literary 
interest  manifested  itself  among  the  prophets  in  the  col- 
lection of  ancient  songs  and  stories,  and  their  compila- 
tion— after  impressing  upon  them,  the  conceptions  and 
ideals  of  the  collectors — into  extensive  narrative  works, 
which  endeavored  to  trace  history  back  to  the  beginning 
of  man's  life  on  earth.^  Several  compilations  of  this 
kind  may  have  been  undertaken,  both  in  the  southern 
kingdom  and  in  the  north;  but  only  two  of  them,  the 
Yahwist,  written  in  Judah,  and  the  Elohist,  written  in 
Israel,  exerted  any  marked  influence  on  later  literary 
developments  affecting  the  growth  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  Jehovistic  or  Yahwistic  document  was  written 
first.®  It  opened  with  an  account  of  creation,  the  origin 
of  sin,  and  the  introduction  of  important  occupations 
and  institutions  known  to  the  writer.  Through  the  story 
of  the  tower  of  Babel  he  sought  to  account  for  the  dis- 
persion of  mankind,  and  the  rise  of  nations  and  languages. 


*  The  compilers   seem   to  have  made   no  attempt   to  harmonize 
traditions  derived  from  different  sources. 
'  See  above,  p.  242. 


298  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Then  followed  the  patriarchal  narratives,  accounts  of 
Israel's  experiences  in  Egypt,  the  Exodus,  the  desert 
wanderings,  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  and  perhaps,  the 
early  decades  of  the  monarchy,  down  to  the  accession  of 
Solomon.  Here  and  there  brief  legal  sections  were  em- 
bodied. The  original  document  was  expanded  at  different 
times  by  the  addition  of  other  narratives  and  of  archaeo- 
logical or  explanatory  notes.  These  additions  can  be 
distinguished  from  the  original  work  by  variations  in 
vocabulary  and  point  of  view;  but  the  work  in  its  final 
form  was  dominated  by  the  same  essentially  prophetic 
tone  and  spirit  that  characterized  the  earliest  portions. 

Within  the  century  following  the  compilation  of  the 
Yahwistic  history  in  Judah  the  prophets  in  the  northern 
kingdom  undertook  a  similar  task,  and  they  produced  a 
history  resembling  in  many  respects  that  written  in  the 
south.  There  are,  however,  some  very  marked  differences 
between  the  two.  Though  there  is  abundant  evidence  of 
a  pronounced  religious  and  ethical  purpose  in  J,  the  his- 
torical interest  is  at  least  equally  marked.  Evidently,  the 
author  made  a  serious  effort  to  trace  the  development  of 
Israel  as  a  race  and  as  a  nation.  "The  great  crises  and 
their  significance  are  graphically  portrayed.  The  interest 
in  the  heroes  of  the  nation  and  their  valiant  achievements 
is  that  of  a  devoted  patriot.  The  origin  of  Israel's  social 
and  religious  institutions  also  commands  attention.  But 
a  still  broader  and  deeper  purpose  is  everywhere  evident, 
which  reveals  not  only  the  patriotic  historian  but  the 
prophet.  Israel's  history  is  recounted,  not  because  it  was 
glorious,  but  because  it  effectively  illustrates  God's 
gracious  attitude  toward  men,  and  the  inevitable  conse- 
quences of  right  or  wrong  acts."  ^^    This  emphasis  is  to 

"  C.  F.  Kent,  The  Historical  Bible,  i,  p.  24. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH       299 

some  extent  reversed  in  the  northern  history.  It  reveals 
less  interest  in  the  history  of  the  nation  as  such;  its 
primary  concern  is  the  development  of  the  theocracy,  in 
w^hich  the  prophet  occupied  the  commanding  position. 
Consequently,  direct  divine  interferences  in  Israel's  his- 
tory are  much  more  frequent  than  in  J.  The  author's 
interest  centering  in  the  theocracy,  he  began  his  narrative 
with  Abraham,  who  was  the  first  to  receive  the  theocratic 
promise.  It  too  may  have  continued  the  story  well  into 
the  period  of  the  United  Monarchy. 

The  next  significant  step  in  the  development  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  the  combination  of  these  two  documents, 
the  Yahwistic  and  the  Elohistic,  into  one  continuous  his- 
tory. When  the  northern  kingdom  was  dissolved  in  B.  C. 
722  many  pious  Israelites  who  escaped  deportation  emi- 
grated to  Judah,  where  they  hoped  to  enjoy  a  more  con- 
genial religious  atmosphere  than  among  the  colonists 
brought  from  the  east.  Naturally,  these  emigrants  car- 
ried with  them  the  literary  treasures  of  the  north,  or  at 
least  some  of  them,  among  them  the  Elohistic  history. 
The  circulation  of  this  history  by  the  side  of  the  Judsean 
narrative  might  prove  confusing;  at  the  same  time  it  was 
so  full  of  valuable  didactic  material  that  its  suppression 
would  mean  a  decided  loss  to  the  religious  life  of  the 
south.  A  great,  inspired,  prophetic  soul,  recognizing  the 
value  of  the  northern  document,  decided  to  combine  the 
two  narratives.  When  this  was  done  cannot  be  definitely 
decided;  the  era  of  reaction  during  the  reign  of  Manasseh 
would  seem  to  offer  a  most  suitable  occasion,  for  it  was 
then  that  the  very  lessons  taught  in  and  by  these  histories 
needed  to  be  impressed  upon  the  people. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  native  history  was  made  the 
basis  of  the  compilation;  material  from  the  other  source 


300  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

being  introduced  in  suitable  places.  Sometimes  two  ac- 
counts of  the  same  incident  were  fused  into  one;  some- 
times the  parallel  accounts  were  retained  side  by  side ;  in 
other  instances  only  one  account,  usually  that  of  J,  was 
retained;  when  there  was  but  one  version  of  a  story  it 
was  reproduced,  whether  it  came  from  the  northern 
or  the  southern  document.  In  this  manner  the  most 
valuable  elements  in  both  histories  were  preserved;  but, 
as  is  natural,  minor  inconsistencies  and  abrupt  tran- 
sitions abounded  in  the  composite  narrative.  Legal  ele- 
ments found  in  J  and  E  were  embodied  in  their  proper 
places ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  some  laws  not  found 
in  either  were  introduced  at  this  time.  There  is  no  good 
reason  for  thinking  that  after  the  completion  of  the  com- 
pilation efforts  were  made  to  destroy  the  two  independent 
narratives ;  they  may  have  continued  to  be  read  for  gen- 
erations, or  even  centuries;  but  in  the  end  they  were 
entirely  superseded  by  the  composite  work. 

During  the  same  general  period  another  Pentateuchal 
document,  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  assumed  literary 
form.  After  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy,  and 
especially  beginning  with  the  reign  of  Solomon,  the  life 
and  society  of  Israel  became  increasingly  complex.  Inter- 
course with  foreign  nations  opened  the  way  for  the 
introduction  of  foreign  beliefs,  customs  and  institutions, 
which,  in  turn,  affected  the  religious  and  ethical  ideals  of 
the  people,  until  the  uniqueness  of  Yahweh  religion  was 
seriously  threatened.  The  crisis  became  acute  in  the 
eighth  century.  On  the  one  hand,  external  prosperity  led 
to  moral  and  religious  corruption ;  on  the  other,  the  suc- 
cesses of  Assyria  threatened  to  destroy  belief  in  the 
power  and  supremacy  of  Yahweh  as  the  God  of  Israel. 
The  seiverity  of  the  crisis  called  forth  four  prophets  of 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        301 

unusual  insight  and  spiritual  power — Amos,  Hosea, 
Isaiah,  and  Micah.^^  Their  teaching  established  new 
ethical  and  religious  standards,  and  under  king  Hezekiah 
a  serious  attempt  was  made  to  put  the  prophetic  teaching 
into  practice  throughout  the  whole  of  Judah. 

The  era  of  reform  under  Hezekiah  was  followed  by  the 
reactionary  reign  of  Manasseh,  during  which  the  voice 
of  prophecy  was  silent.  For  half  a  century  or  more  the 
anti-Yahwistic  party  was  supreme.  The  old  Canaanite 
cults  and  the  newly  introduced  Assyrian  beliefs  and  prac- 
tices commanded  the  devotion  of  the  people,  while  the 
sublime  teaching  of  the  eighth-century  prophets  was  for- 
gotten. It  was  the  very  seriousness  of  the  situation  that 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  spiritually-minded  to  the  needs  of 
the  hour.  The  spirit  of  Isaiah  still  lived  in  his  disciples, 
Yahweh  was  still  watching  over  his  people.  Prevented 
from  preaching,  the  prophets  were  compelled  to  devise 
other  and  better  means  to  accomplish  the  desired  results. 
They  resorted  to  writing,  and  endeavored  to  put  their 
teaching  into  a  form  more  permanent  and,  at  the  same 
time,  intelligible  to  all.  They  realized  that  in  order  to 
reach  the  masses  they  must  put  even  the  loftiest  principles 
into  concrete  form;  hence  they  adopted,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, previously  existing  forms,  usages,  and  traditions, 
eliminated  the  lower,  unspiritual  elements,  and  poured 
into  them  a  deeper  and  more  spiritual  significance.  The 
noblest  results  of  this  activity  found  expression  in  the 
Deuteronomic  Code. 

The  laws  of  Deuteronomy  do  not  represent  a  break 
with  Israel's  past;  they  mark,  rather,  a  development  and 
expansion  of  earlier  legislation  in  the  spirit  of  the  eighth- 
century  prophets.     The  spirit  of  D  is  preeminently  pro- 

"F.  C.  Eiselen,  The  Minor  Prophets,  pp.  2ioff. 


302  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

phetic,  not  priestly;  service  is  ever  placed  above  sacrifice. 
To  love  and  to  serve  Yahweh  with  all  the;  heart  and  soul 
and  might  is  the  supreme  demand.^ ^  The  specific  laws 
are  presented  simply  as  means  whereby  this  love  may 
express  itself.  Three  fourths  of  the  laws  in  the  earlier 
codes  are  reproduced  in  some  form  in  D.  The  omission 
of  some  of  the  others  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  pur- 
pose of  the  new  code :  it  was  intended  for  popular  use, 
while  the  omitted  laws  were  primarily  for  the  guidance 
of  those  who  administered  the  law.  The  omission  or 
alteration  of  other  earlier  laws  and  the  addition  of  new 
ones  are  to  be  traced  to  changes  in  the  political,  social, 
and  religious  conditions  and  to  the  teaching  of  the  eighth- 
century  prophets.  In  the  words  of  Kent :  "The  lofty 
ideals  of  justice;  and  social  righteousness  that  permeate 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy  are  clearly  traceable  to  the 
sermons  of  Amos  and  Isaiah,  and  its  distinctive  spirit, 
that  of  love  to  God  and  man,  is  the  clear  reflection  of  the 
central  doctrine  of  Hosea."  ^^ 

The  extent  of  D  in  its  original  form  is  a  matter  of 
dispute.  Many  hold  that  it  contained  only  what  cor- 
responds in  the  present  book  to  chapters  12-19  ^^^  26, 
plus  the  blessings  and  curses  in  chapter  28,  though  the 
latter  in  a  simpler  form  than  they  now  have.  But  even 
if  the  original  D  was  as  short  as  is  claimed,  the  whole 
legal  section,  chapters  5-28,  must  have  been  completed 
before  the  exile  in  B.  C.  586.  The  original  document 
probably  opened  with  a  brief  historical  introduction,^* 
which  was  later  expanded,  on  the  basis  of  either  the 
independent  J  and  E,  chiefly  the  latter,  or  the  combined 


"  Deut.  6.  4ff. 

"C.  F.  Kent,  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  32. 

"Deut.  4.  45-49. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        303 

JE,  into  the  lengthy  introduction  now  fiUing  chapters  1-4. 
Chapters  29-34  also  contain  later  additions  made  at  dif- 
ferent times  and  from  different  sources.^ '^ 

After  the  acceptance  of  D  as  the  law  of  the  land  the 
desirability  of  combining  the  new  law  code  with  the 
earlier  documents  that  had  come  to  occupy  a  unique  place 
in  the  thought  of  the  people  was  soon  felt.  This  feeling 
received  a  new  impetus  after  the  dissolution  of  the 
national  life,  when  the  few  remains  of  national  literature 
came  to  be  highly  prized.  The  exact  process  or  processes 
of  combination  can  no  longer  be  traced.  H  it  were  certain 
that  the  narrative  sections  in  D  were  based  on  the  com- 
bined JE,  it  might  be  assumed  that  during  the  exile  in 
Babylonia  a  religious  patriot,  or  a  school  of  such  men, 
set  about  the  task  of  combining  D  with  JE.  In  doing 
this  they  introduced  but  few  modifications  in  the  narra- 
tive portions  to  the  close  of  what  is  now  the  book  of 
Numbers.  At  this  point  they  introduced  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code,  which  may  have  necessitated  other  modi- 

"  In  its  present  form  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  consists,  aside 
from  the  introductory  historical  section  (chaps.  1-4),  and  the  fare- 
well speeches,  exhortations,  blessings,  curses,  etc.  (chaps.  27-34)  of 
seven  loosely  connected  groups  of  laws: 

(1)  The  prophetic  Decalogue,  followed  by  a  series  of  exhorta- 
tions based  chiefly  on  the  first  command  (chaps.  5-11). 

(2)  Ceremonial  and  religious  laws  (12.  i  to  17.  7). 

(3)  Appointment  and  duties  of  the  officials  in  the  theocracy- 
judges,  kings,  priests,  and  prophets   (17.  8  to  18.  22). 

(4)  Criminal  laws   (19.  1-21 ;  21.   1-9). 

(5)  Military  laws,  to  be  observed  in  case  of  war  (20.  1-20; 
21.  10-14). 

(6)  A  miscellaneous  collection  of  civil,  criminal,  humane,  and 
religious  laws,  many  of  which  are  closely  related  to  laws  in  the 
other  groups   (21.  15  to  25.  19). 

(7)  Presentation  of  the  first-born  and  the  triennial  tithe  (26.  l- 
19).     Compare  Kent,  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents,  p.  34. 


304  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

fications  and  additions.^ ^  As  was  first  suggested  by 
Kuenen/'  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  may  originally  have 
occupied  this  place,  and  was  transferred  to  its  present 
position  in  order  to  make  room  for  D.  Another  sugges- 
tion is  that  for  a  time  two  editions  of  D  were  current, 
one  consisting  of  chapters  12-26,  with  chapters  5-1 1  as 
introduction,  the  other  consisting  of  chapters  12-26,  with 
I.  I  to  4.  40  as  introduction.^^  According  to  this  theory, 
the  task  of  the  compiler  would  have  been  twofold :  ( i )  the 
combination  of  the  two  recensions  of  D,  and  (2)  the 
combination  of  the  result  with  JE.  A  still  different 
theory  is  advanced  by  E.  Sellin,  namely,  that  a  short 
time  before  the  exile  D  was  combined  with  E,  and  that 
during  the  Babylonian  exile  this  combination  ED  was 
united  with  JE,  the  result  being  JED.^^  Whatever  the 
exact  method  of  procedure  may  have  been,  it  seems  clear 
that  at  some  time  during  the  sixth  century  D  was  united 
with  JE,  the  compiler  or  compilers  introducing  into  the 
older  work  such  modifications  as  were  necessary  to  main- 
tain or  establish  a  logical  arrangement. 

The  efforts  of  the  Deuteronomic  editor  or  editors  did 
not  confine  themselves  to  the  sections  of  JE  dealing  with 
the  periods  preceding  the  death  of  Moses,  though  it  is  not 
improbable  that  they  introduced  a  definite  and  well- 
marked  division  at  the  point  where  the  close  of  Moses's 
activity  was  recorded.  They  edited  or  revised,  from  the 
standpoint  of  D,  the  sections  of  JE  that  contained  the 
later  history  and  also  the  historical  documents  inde- 
pendent of  JE,  which  traced  the  national  history  beyond 


"  C.  Steuernagel,  Deuteronomium,  Sec.  5. 

"  Hexateuch,  pp.  2S8ff. 

"Bennett  and  Adeney,  Biblical  Introduction,  p.  51. 

^*  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  49. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        305 

the  United  Monarchy.  In  doing  this  they  made  the  ideals 
of  D  the  criterion  by  which  they  judged  the  whole  course 
of  the  history.  The  result  was  what  may  be  called  a 
Deuteronomic  history  from  creation  to  the  exile,  parts  of 
which  are  found,  outside  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings. 

The  Deuteronomic  Code,  though  recognizing  the  value 
and  importance  of  priestly  institutions,  was  written  from 
the  prophetic  standpoint.  Now,  while  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  thinking  that  the  priests  placed  any  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  Josiah's  reforms,  or  expressed  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  code  upon  which  they  were  based,  it  may 
well  be  that  the  publication  of  the  "prophetic"  code, 
intended  for  the  instruction  and  guidance  of  the  people, 
caused  the  priests  to  feel  that  their  own  interests  and  the 
interests  of  the  phase  of  religion  they  represented  de- 
manded the  collection  into  one,  easily  accessible,  code  of 
at  least  the  more  fundamental  laws  or  toroth,  which  had 
grown  up  at  various  priestly  centers  and  which  dealt  more 
particularly  with  priestly  interests  and  ideals.  The  result 
was  the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness,  which  internal  evi- 
dence, especially  Its  close  affinity  with  the  literature  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  and  the  early  part  of  the 
sixth  century,  such  as  Deuteronomy,  Jeremiah,  and 
especially  Ezeklel,  proves  to  have  been  compiled  shortly 
before  the  exile  of  B.  C.  586.2^  Even  a  superficial  study 
shows  that  the  laws  of  H  reflect  primarily  priestly  inter- 
ests and  practice.  At  any  rate,  the  parts  which  have  been 
preserved^i  "deal  largely  with  subjects  in  which  the 
priesthood  had  a  peculiar  interest — the  physical  qualifica- 


'"See  above,  p.  290. 

"  The  original  code  may  have  been  more  extensive  than  the  body 
of  laws  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch. 


3o6  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

tlons  of  priests,  restrictions  on  mourning  and  on  mar- 
riage, conditions  which  prevent  their  eating  sacrificial 
food,  the  examination  of  animals  for  sacrifice,  and  the 
celebration  of  the  feasts.^^  After  its  completion  the  code 
may  have  been  carried  to  Babylonia  by  a  member  of  the 
priestly  circles  to  which  Ezekiel  belonged.  At  any  rate, 
it  exerted  a  profound  influence  on  the  latter's  thinking 
and  preaching,  as  is  attested,  for  instance,  by  the  fact 
that  the  principle  underlying  the  laws  of  Ezekiel  is  the 
same  kind  of  holiness  as  is  insisted  upon  in  the  Law  of 
Holiness — the  supreme  holiness  of  Yahweh  and  the  cor- 
responding obligation  of  the  people  to  reflect  this  holiness. 

The  work  of  Ezekiel  and  the  Babylonian  exile  in 
general  proved  of  the  greatest  significance  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Israel's  literature  and  religion.  With  the  pro- 
mulgation of  D  began  the  reign  of  written  law;  the  Law 
of  Holiness  and  the  laws  of  Ezekiel  marked  a  further 
step  in  the  same  direction;  but  the  highest  development 
of  the  legalistic  tendency  during  the  Old  Testament  period 
may  be  seen  in  the  Priestly  Code.  Self-examination  and 
contrition  for  past  sins  led  many  of  the  exiles  into  a  new 
and  higher  religious  experience  and  life;  they  came  to 
understand — in  large  part  as  a  result  of  the  activity  and 
teaching  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel — that  true  religion  did 
not  depend  on  the  existence  of  the  state,  the  sacred  city, 
or  the  temple,  but  on  the  relation  of  the  individual  to 
his  God. 

While  this  spiritualizing  process  was  going  on,  the 
question  seems  to  have  arisen  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the 
religious  thinkers :  Having  reached  the  higher  stage  of 
religion,  how  may  the  people  avoid  the  lapses  of  the  past? 
Apparently,  the  prophetic  method  had  not  proved  a  com- 

**G.  F.  Moore,  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Leviticus." 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        307 

plete  success;  generation  after  generation  these  cour- 
ageous preachers  of  righteousness  had  done  their  best 
to  create  a  pure  and  holy  nation;  but  after  the  lapse  of 
centuries  the  people  seemed  to  be  still  far  short  of  the 
ideal.  Then  the  thought  suggested  itself  that,  perhaps, 
the  method  of  the  prophets  was  not  the  one  best  adapted 
to  the  needs  of  the  time.  Perhaps  the  people  had  not  yet 
reached  the  stage  of  mental  and  spiritual  development 
when  they  might  be  trusted  to  apply  the  lofty,  spiritual 
principles  of  religion  to  the  ordinary  affairs  of  everyday 
life.  It  might  be  safer  and  more  effective  to  lay  down 
definite  rules  and  urge  the  people  to  observe  these,  and 
thus  avoid  the  failures  of  the  past. 

It  was  this  kind  of  reasoning  that  gave  birth  to  the 
legalism  of  the  postexilic  period,  already  foreshadowed 
in  the  Law  of  Holiness  and  in  the  work  of  Ezekiel.^^ 
The  movement  was  hastened  by  the  profound  sense  of 
guilt  created  within  the  people  as  a  result  of  the  experi- 
ences of  the  exile.  In  the  attempt  to  propitiate  Yahweh 
new  festivals  were  introduced,  new  forms  of  sacrifice 
were  instituted,  and  older  institutions,  sacrifices,  and  festi- 
vals assumed  a  new  and  deeper  significance.  With  the 
feeling  of  unworthiness  came  an  almost  overpowering 
sense  of  the  awful  holiness  of  Yahweh,  who,  it  came  to 
be  thought,  could  be  approached  only  by  means  of  an 
elaborate  and  beautiful  ritual  and  ceremonial.  Moreover, 
the  Jewish  exiles  could  not  remain  uninfluenced  by  the 
magnificent  temples  and  splendid  forms  of  worship  of 
the  pious  Babylonians.  In  the  light  of  all  these  facts  is 
it  any  wonder  that  among  the  religious  leaders  of  the 


"  In  the  beginning  the  movement  was  permeated  by  a  spirit  of 
intense  moral  earnestness;  the  exaggeration  of  the  letter  is  a  later 
development. 


3o8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Jews  the  conviction  grew  that  the  supreme  need  of  the 
hour  was  an  elaborate  and  beautiful  ritual  and  a  legal 
system  comprehensive  enough  to  regulate  every  detail  of 
Hfe? 

The  new  ideals  found  concrete  expression  in  the 
elaborate  system  of  laws  and  regulations  which  con- 
stitutes the  so-called  Priestly  Code.^*  Underlying  the 
entire  body  of  laws  is  the  conviction  reflected  also  in 
the  earlier  collections,  that  Israel  is  ordained  to  be  a  holy 
community,  sanctified  by  the  presence  of  Yahweh  himself. 
Consequently,  the  nation  is  treated  as  a  religious  com- 
munity, whose  chief  mission  is  to  live  for  the  service  of 
God;  and  the  whole  legislation  is  meant  to  maintain  the 
right  kind  of  relation  between  Yahweh  and  his  people, 
or,  if  in  any  way  it  should  be  interrupted,  to  restore  it. 

The  legislation  of  the  Priestly  Code  was  not  a  new 
creation;  on  the  contrary,  it  reproduced  many  laws  and 
legal  precedents  that  had  been  handed  down  from  the 


"Provisions  taken  from  this  code  are  found  principally  in 
Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers.  That  it  deals  almost  exclusively 
with  the  external,  ceremonial  aspect  of  religion  may  be  seen  from 
the  following  brief  survey  of  the  more  important  laws  in  the  Code : 

Law  of  circumcision  (Gen.  17). 

Law  of  the  Passover    (Exod.  12). 

Regulations  regarding  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture,  the  dress 
and  consecration  of  the  priests,  the  law  of  the  daily  burnt-offering, 
etc.     (Exod.  25-31;  35-40). 

Ritual  of  various  kinds  of  sacrifice  (Lev.  i.  i  to  6.  7). 

Regulations  relating  to  the  priests,  their  dress,  perquisites,  etc. 
(Lev.  6.  8  to  ID.  20). 

Laws  of  purification  and  atonement   (Lev.  11-16;  Num.  5,  19)- 

Commendation  of  tithes  and  vows  (Lev.  27;  Num.  30). 

Law  of  the  Nazirite  (Num.  6). 

Duties  and  revenues  of  priests  and  Levites  (Num.  18),  the 
Levitical  cities  (Num.  35.  1-8).  A  more  detailed  analysis  may  be 
found  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iii,  p.  70. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        309 

earliest  days  of  Hebrew  history.  However,  many  of 
these  early  laws  had  undergone  various  modifications, 
and  the  priestly  compiler  or  editor  embodied  them  in  his 
collection  in  a  form  which,  he  believed,  would  meet  the 
religious  needs  of  the  age  for  the  guidance  of  which  he 
was  compiling  the  new  code.  It  is  not  improbable  that 
the  Law  of  Holiness  served  as  the  nucleus  around  which 
the  material  taken  from  different  sources  was  arranged; 
at  any  rate,  it  seems  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  new  code 
from  the  beginning. 

As  long  as  the  religious  leaders  of  the  Jews  retained 
the  spirit  and  moral  earnestness  of  the  prophets  the  de- 
tailed legal  system  might  prove  a  valuable  means  of 
religious  education,  to  "develop  and  deepen  the  sense  of 
sin,  and  to  awaken  in  devout  souls  religious  affections — 
trust,  devotion,  self-surrender,  thankful  love,  the  long- 
ing for  divine  grace."  Nevertheless,  through  its  excessive 
emphasis  of  external  forms  and  ceremonies  it  would 
prove  an  ever-present  danger  to  true  religion,  for  it  would 
be  very  easy  to  define  religion  in  terms  of  ritual  and 
form,  to  drift  into  a  spirit  of  formalism,  and  to  confuse 
technical  holiness  with  moral  purity.  Unfortunately, 
later  generations  yielded  to  the  temptation,  until  the 
religion  of  the  great  mass  of  people  became  an  empty 
form,  lacking  all  vitality  and  power.  Thus,  estimating 
the  significance  of  the  Priestly  Code  in  the  light  of  later 
happenings,  one  is  compelled  to  regard  it  as  a  step  back- 
ward in  the  religious  thought  and  life  of  Israel. 

The  new  law,  having  behind  it  the  authority  of  the 
name  of  Moses,  soon  came  to  be  accepted  and  revered 
as  final  authority  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  conduct. 
In  other  words,  the  seat  of  authority  was  transferred 
from  the  present  experience  of  communion  with  God  to 


310  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

laws  thought  to  have  been  given  when  God  was  much 
nearer  to  his  people.  The  greater  emphasis  on  the 
presence  of  Yahweh  in  the  past,  and  the  resulting  under- 
estimate of  the  spiritual  privileges  of  the  present,  created 
an  entirely  new  interest  in  the  events  of  the  past.  With 
it  came  a  tendency  to  idealize  the  early  stages  of  Israel's 
history,  and  to  trace  back  to  the  better  days  in  the  long 
ago  many  of  the  ideas  and  institutions  that  bulked  so 
largely  in  the  post-exilic  Judaism.  This  new  interest  in 
the  past  impelled  some  priest  or  priests,  who  were  under 
the  influence  of  the  new  point  of  view,  to  rewrite  the  early 
history  of  Israel — tracing  it  back  to  creation — perhaps 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  providing  a  fitting  historical 
setting  for  the  laws  in  the  Priestly  Code.  The  writers 
may  have  known  the  earlier  histories  J  and  E,  or  the 
combined  JED,  and  they  may  have  had  access  to  other 
material,  oral  or  written;  but  wherever  they  secured  the 
material,  they  brought  it  all  under  their  own  peculiar 
point  of  view,  giving  abundant  evidence  that  their 
primary  interest  was  not  in  the  history  as  such,  but  in 
the  origin  of  legal  and  ceremonial  practices  and  institu- 
tions. 

The  Priestly  Code  was  not  the  work  of  a  few  months 
or  years;  in  all  probability  the  compilers  and  editors 
worked  on  it  for  several  generations,  beginning  in  the 
days  of  Ezekiel  and  ending  about  the  middle  of  the  suc- 
ceeding century.  The  place  of  their  activity  was  Baby- 
lonia, where  they  formed  an  important  element  in  the 
Yahweh  community  among  the  exiles.  If  Ezra  returned 
from  there  in  B.  C.  458,^^  the  Code  may  have  been 
brought  by  him  to  Jerusalem;  indeed,  he  may  have  put 

^'^  See  above,  pp.  250,  251,  and  vol.  iii  of  this  Series,  chapter  on 
"Ezra-Nehemiah,"  soon  to  be  published. 


GROWTH  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH        311 

the  finishing  touches  to  the  work.  But  whether  Ezra  had 
any  connection  with  the  Priestly  Code  or  not,  before  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  practically  all  the  material  that 
ultimately  found  its  way  into  the  Pentateuch  had  assumed 
literary  form. 

The  necessity  of  amalgamating  the  two  parallel  his- 
tories of  the  Mosaic  and  pre-Mosaic  ages — JED  and  P — 
must  have  been  felt  soon  after  the  completion  of  the 
Priestly  Code.  As  long  as  the  two  existed  side  by  side, 
as  separate  works,  they  would  appear  to  compete  for 
recognition  as  the  authoritative  law  of  Moses  or  of 
Yahweh.  Such  controversy  could  be  averted  only  by 
uniting  the  two  into  one  continuous  work.  The  task  of 
fusing  JED  with  P  may  have  been  undertaken  by  Ezra, 
the  scribe.  But  if  he  must  be  excluded  from  considera- 
tion,^® it  is  perfectly  safe  to  assume  that  it  was  done  by 
some  one  who,  though  not  blind  to  the  religious  value 
of  the  earlier  work,  yet  was  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the 
ideals  of  P.  Consequently,  he  made  the  document  that 
had  originated  in  the  priestly  circles  of  the  immediate 
past  the  groundwork  of  the  compilation,  introducing  in 
their  proper  places  extracts  from  the  older  work,  with 
such  modifications  as  the  changed  conditions  and  ideals 
seemed  to  make  imperative.  Some  material  found  in 
neither  document  may  have  been  added  from  other  early 
sources  or  may  have  been  supplied  by  the  compiler.^'^ 


*'  See  references  given  in  note  25. 

"  Since  the  priestly  writers  were  interested  primarily  in  the  age 
of  Moses,  because  to  it  was  assigned  the  origin  of  the  entire  legal 
system,  the  composite  work,  like  the  earlier  compilation,  was  made 
to  close  with  an  account  of  the  death  of  the  great  lawgiver.  This 
left  in  the  hands  of  the  priestly  conservers  of  the  national  literature 
the  closing  section  of  the  Priestly  Code,  dealing  with  the  conquest 


312  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Thus,  aside  from  minor  alterations,  made  at  a  still 
later  period,  the  Pentateuch  reached  its  completed  form 
before  B.  C.  400.^^  The  finished  product  received  the 
designation  Tordh,  or  Law.  Subsequently  it  was  divided, 
at  natural  dividing  points,  into  five  parts  or  books,  so 
that  the  v^hole  came  to  be  knov^n  as  the  "Five-fifths  of 
the  Law^."  From  this  title  is  derived  the  name  Penta- 
teuch, meaning  "Fivefold  Treatise,"  which  was  coined 
by  Greek  writers,  from  whom  it  passed  into  Latin  and 
other  western  languages. 


and  division  of  the  land  of  Canaan.    This  was  fused  at  a  later  time 
with  the  remaining  portions  of  the  Deuteronomic  history  of  Israel, 
to  which  reference  has  been  made  on  pp.  304,  305. 
^°  See  above,  pp.  250,  251. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE 
OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE 
OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

Professor  W.  H.  Green,  in  discussing  the  historical 
and  reHgious  value  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  tradi- 
tional point  of  view,  uses  these  words :  "If  the  Pentateuch 
is  what  it  claims  to  be,  it  is  of  the  greatest  interest  and 
value.  It  professes  to  record  the  origin  of  the  world 
and  of  the  human  race,  a  primitive  state  of  innocence 
from  which  man  fell  by  yielding  to  temptation,  the  history 
of  the  earliest  ages,  the  relationship  subsisting  between 
the  different  nations  of  mankind,  and  particularly  the 
selection  of  Abraham  and  his  descendants  to  be  the  chosen 
people  of  God,  the  depositaries  of  divine  revelation,  in 
whose  line  the  Son  of  God  should  in  due  time  become 
incarnate  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  It  further  con- 
tains an  account  of  the  providential  events  accompanying 
the  development  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  from  a  family 
to  the  nation,  their  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  civil 
and  religious  institutions  under  which  they  were  organ- 
ized in  the  prospect  of  their  entry  into,  and  occupation  of, 
the  land  of  Canaan.  The  contents  of  the  Pentateuch 
stand  thus  in  intimate  relation  to  the  problems  of  physical 
and  ethnological  science,  to  history  and  archaeology  and 
religious  faith.  All  the  subsequent  revelations  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  itself,  rest  upon 
the  foundation  of  what  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  as 
they  either  presuppose  or  directly  affirm  its  truth, 

315 


3i6  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

"It  is  a  question  of  primary  importance,  therefore, 
both  in  itself  and  in  its  consequences,  whether  the  Penta- 
teuch is  a  veritable,  trustworthy  record,  or  is  a  hetero- 
geneous mass  of  legend  and  fable  from  which  only  a 
modicum  of  truth  can  be  doubtfully  and  with  difficulty 
elicited.  Can  we  lay  it  at  the  basis  of  our  investigations, 
and  implicitly  trust  its  representations,  or  must  we  admit 
that  its  unsupported  word  can  only  be  received  with 
caution,  and  that  of  itself  it  carries  but  little  weight?  In 
the  settlement  of  this  matter  a  consideration  of  no  small 
consequence  is  that  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Its  credibility  is,  of  course,  not  absolutely  dependent 
upon  its  Mosaic  authorship.  It  might  be  all  true,  though 
it  were  written  by  another  than  Moses  and  after  his 
time.  But  if  it  was  written  by  Moses,  then  the  history 
of  the  Mosaic  age  was  recorded  by  a  contemporary  and 
eyewitness,  one  who  was  himself  a  participant  and  a 
leader  in  the  scenes  which  he  relates,  and  the  legislator 
from  whom  the  enactments  proceeded;  and  it  must  be 
confessed  that  there  is  in  this  fact  the  highest  possible 
guaranty  of  the  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  whole."  * 

Though  Professor  Green  admits  that  the  denial  of 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  does  not  neces- 
sarily destroy  the  historical  value  of  the  book,  in  another 
connection  he  insists  that  such  denial  not  only  robs  the 
Pentateuch  of  all  value  but  actually  tends  to  destroy  the 
historical  basis  of  biblical  religion.  He  says :  "Here  is  no 
question  merely  of  the  strict  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  of 
absolute  accuracy  in  unimportant  minutiae,  of  precision  in 
matters  of  science.  This  is  not  the  issue  raised  by  the 
theorizing  of  that  class  of  biblical  critics  with  which  we 

'  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  31,  32. 

*  "The  most  conservative  of  the  divisive  critics"   (p.  162). 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  317 

contend.^  And  it  is  no  mere  question  of  the  mode  of  in- 
spiration. But  it  is  the  question  whether  any  dependence 
can  be  placed  upon  the  historical  truth  of  the  Bible; 
whether  our  confidence  in  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Penta- 
teuch rests  upon  any  really  trustworthy  basis ;  facts,  be  it 
observed,  not  of  mere  scientific  or  antiquarian  interest,  but 
which  mark  the  course  of  God's  revelations  to  the  patri- 
archs and  to  Moses.  It  is  the  certainty  of  facts  which  are 
vital  to  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  denial 
of  whose  truth  weakens  the  foundations  on  which  the 
New  Testament  itself  is  built.  The  critical  theory  which 
we  have  been  examining  is  destructive  of  all  rational  cer- 
tainty of  the  reality  of  these  truths;  and  thus  tends  to 
overturn  the  historical  basis  of  the  religion  of  the 
Bible.  ...  It  is  no  merely  literary  question,  then,  which 
this  style  of  criticism  raises.  It  is  not  simply  whether 
the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  one  author  or  another, 
while  its  historic  truth  and  its  divine  authority  remain 
unaffected.  The  truth  and  evidence  of  the  entire  Mosaic 
history  are  at  stake.  And  with  this  stands  or  falls  the 
reality  of  God's  revelation  to  Moses  and  the  divine  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament."  ^ 

If  the  fears  of  Professor  Green  were  well  founded, 
the  situation  would  seem  to  be  a  serious  one.  But  is  it 
true  that  the  modern  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
has  destroyed  its  value  and  threatens  to  undermine  "the 
historical  basis  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible"?  There  are 
thousands  of  serious-minded  and  devout  students  of  the 
Bible  who  can  subscribe  to  the  testimony  of  Professor 
A.  S.  Peake :  "I  may  truthfully  say  that  my  sense  of  the 
value  of  Scripture,  my  interest  in  it,  my  attachment  to 
it,  have  been  almost  indefinitely  enhanced  by  the  new 

*  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  163,  164. 


3i8  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

attitude  and  new  mode  of  study  which  criticism  has 
brought  to  us."  *  Equally  clear  and  definite  are  the 
words  of  Professor  Driver:  "It  is  not  the  case  that 
critical  conclusions  are  in  conflict  either  with  the  Chris- 
tian creeds  or  with  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith. 
Those  conclusions  affect  not  the  fact  of  revelation  but 
only  its  form.  They  help  to  determine  the  stages  through 
which  it  passed,  the  different  phases  which  it  assumed, 
and  the  process  by  which  the  record  of  it  was  built  up. 
They  do  not  touch  either  the  authority  or  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  imply  no 
change  in  respect  to  the  divine  attributes  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament,  no  change  in  the  lessons  of  human  duty 
to  be  derived  from  it,  no  change  as  to  the  general  position 
(apart  from  the  interpretation  of  particular  passages) 
that  the  Old  Testament  points  forward  prophetically  to 
Christ.  That  both  the  religion  itself  and  the  record  of 
its  history  embodied  in  the;  Old  Testament  are  the  work 
of  men  whose  hearts  have  been  touched  and  whose  minds 
illuminated,  in  different  degrees,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is 
manifest."  ^ 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  element  which  gives 
to  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  the  entire  Bible,  its  unique  value 
is  what  is  commonly  called  its  inspiration,  that  is,  the 
presence  in  its  message  of  a  peculiar  divine  element. 
Now,  it  cannot  be  emphasized  too  strongly  that  the  con- 
clusions of  the  modern  Pentateuchal  criticism  have  not 
the   slightest   tendency    of    denying   the   Inspiration    of 

*  Proceedings  of  the  Fourth  Methodist  Ecumenical  Conference, 
p.  243. 

'  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  viii,  ix. 
Both  quotations  refer  to  the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
whole;  but  everything  that  is  said  is  equally  true  of  Pentateuchal 
criticism  in  particular. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  319 

Moses  or  of  any  one  else  who  may  have  had  even  the 
smallest  share  in  the  building  up  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
reality  of  inspiration  does  not  depend  upon  the  fact  that 
a  certain  definite  individual  is  responsible  for  a  w^riting. 
A  book  is  believed  to  be  the  result  of  inspiration  because 
God  is  seen  to  be  back  of  it  and  in  it,  and  not  because  a 
certain  man  wrote  it.  Nor  does  belief  in  inspiration 
depend  upon  a  knowledge  of  the  human  author,  else  how 
could  men  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  men  who 
wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  book  of  Job,  the 
books  of  Samuel,  and  other  biblical  books  whose  authors 
are  not  named?  Moreover,  an  inspired  book  does  not 
lose  its  inspiration  because  it  is  discovered  that  the  human 
author  inspired  is  one  different  from  the  man  to  whom 
tradition  has  been  accustomed  to  assign  the  book.  Green 
and  other  believers  in  the  traditional  views  regarding  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  are  needlessly  alarmed ;  for  it  is 
not  true  that  modern  criticism  "tends  invariably  ...  to 
absolute  rationalism  and  the  discrediting  of  inspiration." 
Turning  from  these  general  considerations  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  Pentateuch,  what  is  the  value  and  significance 
of  this  group  of  books  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge? 
For  the  sake  of  convenience  and  clearness,  the  question 
may  be  considered  under  three  heads:  i.  The  narratives 
dealing  with  the  beginning  of  things.  Gen.  i.  i  to  11.  9. 

2.  The  patriarchal  narratives,  Gen.   11.   10  to  50.  26; 

3.  The  narratives  relating  the  events  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  settlement  east  of  the  Jordan. 

I.  Gen.  I.  I  to  II.  9.  In  former  days  these  chapters 
were  thought  to  give  an  absolutely  accurate  account  of 
creation  and  of  the  earliest  history  of  mankind.  But  as 
the  result  of  various  lines  of  investigation  this  view  of 
the  purpose  of  the  narratives  in  Gen.  i-ii  is  now  con- 


320  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

sidered  untenable.^  "We  are  forced,  therefore,"  says  a 
recent  writer,  "to  the  conclusion  that,  though  the  writers 
to  whom  we  owe  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis 
report  faithfully  what  was  currently  believed  among  the 
Hebrews  respecting  the  early  history  of  mankind,  yet 
there  was  much  they  did  not  know,  and  could  not  take 
cognizance  of.  These  chapters  consequently  contain  no 
account  of  the  real  beginnings,  either  of  the  earth  itself, 
or  of  man  and  human  civilization  upon  it."  '^  This  is 
easily  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  primary  purpose 
of  the  biblical  writers  was  religious,  not  historical  and 
scientific;^  hence,  in  these  opening  chapters  of  Genesis 
"the  only  care  of  the  prophetic  tradition  is  to  bring  out 
clearly  the  religious  origin  of  humanity."  ^ 

H  anyone  is  in  search  of  accurate  information  regard- 
ing the  age  of  this  earth,  or  its  relation  to  the  sun,  moon, 
or  stars,  or  regarding  the  exact  order  in  which  plants  and 
animals  have  appeared  upon  it,  he  should  go  to  recent 
textbooks  in  astronomy,  geology,  and  paleontology.  It 
is  not  the  purpose  of  the  writers  of  Scripture  to  impart 
physical  instruction,  or  to  enlarge  the  bounds  of  scientific 
knowledge.^^  So  far  as  the  scientific  or  historical  infor- 
mation imparted  in  these  chapters  is  concerned,  it  is  of 
little    more   value    than    the    similar    stories    of    other 


'For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  significance  of  these  chapters, 
see,  for  example,  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis  (Westminster 
Commentary  Series)  ;  John  Skinner,  Genesis  (International  Critical 
Commentary  Series)  ;  H.  E.  Ryle,  The  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis; 
A.  R.  Gordon,  The  Early  Traditions  of  Genesis. 

''  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  xlii. 

*F.  C.  Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  12;  54ff-;  235ff- 

*A.  Westphal,  The  Laiv  and  the  Prophets,  p.  43- 

"F.  C.  Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testament, 
chap.  ii. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  321 

nations  ;^^  and  yet  the  student  of  these  chapters  can  see 
a  striking  contrast  between  them  and  extrabibhcal  stories 
describing  the  same  unknown  ages,  which  were  also 
handed  down  from  prescientific  centuries.  The  extra- 
bibhcal traditions  are  of  interest  only  as  relics  of  a  by- 
gone past;  not  so  the  biblical  narratives;  they  are  and 
ever  will  be  of  inestimable  value,  not  because  of  their 
scientific  teaching,  but  because  they  embody  sublime  reli- 
gious truth  in  the  crude  forms  of  primitive  science. 
Consequently,  if  any  one,  instead  of  searching  for  accu- 
rate scientific  information,  wishes  to  know  what  con- 
nection the  world  has  with  God;  if  he  seeks  to  trace  back 
all  that  now  is  to  the  very  fountain  head  of  life;  if  he 
desires  to  discover  some  unifying  principle,  some  illumi- 
nating purpose  in  the  history  of  the  earth,  he  may  turn 
to  these  chapters  as  a  safe  guide  to  the  information  he 
seeks. 

The  purpose  of  the  narratives  being  primarily  religious, 
it  is  only  natural  that  the  lessons  reflected  in  them  should 
be  religious  lessons.  The  one  supreme  truth  taught 
throughout  the  entire  section  is  "In  the  beginning  God." 
But  each  separate  narrative  teaches  its  own  characteristic 
lessons.  The  more  important  of  these  are  summarized 
by  Driver  in  the  following  sentences :  "The  narrative  of 
creation  sets  forth,  in  a  series  of  dignified  and  impressive 
pictures,  the  sovereignty  of  God;  his  priority  to  and 
separation  from  all  finite  material  nature ;  his  purpose  to 
constitute  an  ordered  cosmos,  and  gradually  to  adapt 
the  earth  to  become  the  habitation  of  living  beings;  and 
his  endowment  of  man  with  the  peculiar,  unique  posses- 
sion of  self-conscious  reason,  in  virtue  of  which  he 
became  capable   of   intellectual   and   moral   life,    and   is 

^^  Ibid.,  pp.  201  ff. 


322  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

even  able  to  know  and  hold  communion  with  his  Maker. 
In  chapters  two  and  three  we  read,  though,  again,  not  in 
a  historical  but  in  a  pictorial  and  symbolic  form,  how 
man  was  once  innocent,  how  he  became  conscious  of  a 
moral  law,  and  how  temptation  fell  upon  him  and  he 
broke  that  law.  The  fall  of  man,  the  great  and  terrible 
truth  which  history  not  less  than  individual  experience 
only  too  vividly  teaches  each  one  of  us,  is  thus  im- 
pressively set  before  us.  Man,  however,  though  punished 
by  God,  is  not  forsaken  by  him,  nor  left  in  his  long 
conflict  with  evil  without  hope  of  victory.  In  chapter 
four  the  increasing  power  of  sin,  and  the  fatal  conse- 
quence to  which,  if  unchecked,  it  may  lead,  is  vividly 
portrayed  in  the  tragic  figure  of  Cain.  The  spirit  of 
vindictiveness  and  the  brutal  triumph  in  the  power  of 
the  sword  is  personified  in  Lamech.  In  the  narrative 
of  the  Flood  God's  wrath  against  sin  and  the  divine  pre- 
rogative of  mercy  are  alike  exemplified :  Noah  is  a  stand- 
ing illustration  of  the  truth  that  'righteousness  delivereth 
from  death,'  and  God's  dealings  with  him  after  the  Flood 
form  a  striking  declaration  of  the  purposes  of  grace 
and  good  will  with  which  God  regards  mankind.  The 
narrative  of  the  Tower  of  Babel  emphasizes  Jehovah's 
supremacy  in  the  world,  and  teaches  how  the  self-exalta- 
tion of  man  is  checked  by  God."  ^^ 

2.  The  Patriarchal  Narratives,  Gen.  ii.  lo  to  50.  26. 
In  any  consideration  of  the  historical  value  of  the  patri- 
archal narratives,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  do 
not  claim  to  have  been  written  by  participants  in  the 
events  recorded  or  by  eyewitnesses.  If  Moses  was  the 
author,  there  was,  according  to  the  biblical  record  itself, 


"  The  Book  of  Genesis,  p.  Ixx. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  323 

an  interval  of  about  400  years  between  the  latest  events 
narrated,  the  descent  into  Egypt  and  the  death  of  Jacob, 
and  the  time  of  writing;  several  centuries  have  to 
be  added  in  the  case  of  the  earliest  event,  the  migration 
of  Abraham.  If  the  narratives  did  not  assume  literary 
form  until  centuries  after  the  time  of  Moses,  the  interval 
becomes  even  greater.  In  either  case,  the  stories  probably 
were  handed  down  for  several  centuries  by  word  of 
mouth,  exposed  to  all  the  dangers  that  threaten  narratives 
thus  transmitted  from  generation  to  generation.  It  may 
readily  be  granted  that  among  peoples  without  written 
records  the  memory  is  exercised  more  and  thus  becomes 
more  tenacious  than  among  highly  cultured  peoples  at  the 
present  time,  and  that  popular  stories  once  enshrined  in 
the  memory  of  a  clan  or  tribe  may  be  transmitted  prac- 
tically unaltered  for  many  generations;  nevertheless,  the 
possibility  of  their  becoming  materially  modified,  must  be 
reckoned  with.  These  modifications  may  be  accidental, 
due  to  failure  of  the  memory,  or  intentional,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  the  stories  into  more  complete  accord 
with  the  ideas,  conditions  and  practices  of  a  later  age. 
Hence  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  prove  that  the  patri- 
archal narratives  are  historical  authorities  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word. 

At  the  same  time,  there  is  insufficient  ground  for  doubt- 
ing the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  narratives.  On  the 
contrary,  the  modern  critical  view  has  furnished  a  strong 
argument  in  support  of  their  general  trustworthiness. 
Leaving  aside  the  late  P,  the  older  documents  J  and  E 
furnish  two  distinct  descriptions  of  the  patriarchal  age, 
one  written  in  Judah,  the  other  in  Israel,  which,  though 
differing  in  details,  are  in  fundamental  agreement  in 
their  representation  of  the  early  events.    In  other  words, 


324  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

the  traditions  of  both  north  and  south  appear  to  go  back 
to  what  R.  Kittel  has  called  "a  firm  nucleus  of  consistent 
tradition."  "The  value  of  this  nucleus,"  says  the  same 
author,  "is  by  no  means  small,  for  it  supplies  the  funda- 
mental condition  of  real  history.  If  the  traditions  were 
confusedly  intermixed,  this  would  stamp  them  as  arbi- 
trary creations,  or  the  products  of  popular  fancy.  Their 
not  being  so,  though  far  from  proving  them  positively  to 
be  historical,  justifies  the  presumption  that  we  may  per- 
haps succeed  in  finding  a  historic  core  in  the  patriarchal 
narratives."  ^^ 

Moreover,  the  later  history  of  Israel  presupposes  a 
nomadic  stage  in  the  development  of  the  people,  such  as 
is  described  in  the  book  of  Genesis;  and  there  is  good 
reason  for  believing  that,  in  the  main,  the  narratives 
furnish  a  truthful  picture  of  general  conditions  in  the 
patriarchal  age.  There  is  nothing  in  the  older  strata  of 
the  narratives  that  appears  historically  improbable,  and 
archaeology  has  shown  them  to  be  accurate  in  portraying 
the  general  character  of  the  times.  This  much  is  true, 
though  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  significance  of  the 
archaeological  testimony  has  at  times  been  exaggerated. 
There  is,  for  instance,  no  justification  for  the  claim  of 
Professor  A.  T.  Clay,  that  "the  increase  of  knowledge 
gained  through  the  inscriptions  of  this  period  has  in 
every  instance  dissolved  conclusions  arrived  at  by  those 
critics  who  maintain  that  the  patriarchs  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  historical."  ^*  Archaeology  has  not  one 
whit  of  direct  proof  to  offer  in  support  of  the  personal 
existence  or  character  of  the  patriarchs.  All  that  can 
confidently  be   asserted   is  that   archaeology  has   estab- 

'^R.  Kittel,  History  of  the  Hebrews,  i,  p.  i68. 

^*  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel,  p.  143. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  325 

lished  the  possibility  of  the  main  outhnes  of  the  patri- 
archal narratives  in  Genesis  being  correct. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  at  least  possible  that  in  the 
course  of  time  the  growing  traditions  idealized  the  fore- 
fathers of  the  Hebrew  race,  and  Impressed  upon  them, 
to  some  extent,  later  religious  and  ethical  conceptions. 
"The  view  which,  on  the  whole,  may  be  said  best  to 
satisfy  the  circumstances  in  the  case  is  the  view  that  the 
patriarchs  are  historical  persons,  and  that  the  accounts 
which  we  have  of  them  are  in  outline  historically  true, 
but  that  their  characters  are  idealized,  and  their  biog- 
raphies not  infrequently  colored  by  the  feelings  and  asso- 
ciations of  a  later  age."  ^^ 

The  recognition  of  facts  and  possibilities  like  these  has 
no  terror  for  the  student  who  holds  the  scriptural  view  of 
the  Old  Testament, ^^  that  the  primary  purpose  of  the 
ancient  writers,  even  when  relating  historical  incidents, 
was  not  to  write  history  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term, 
but  to  show  the  hand  of  God  in  the  lives  of  individuals 
and  of  nations.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  hand 
of  God  may  be  seen  in  the  early  history  of  Israel  as 
clearly  on  the  acceptance  of  the  modern  critical  view  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  in  the  days  when  the  narratives  were 
accepted  as  absolutely  accurate  in  every  detail.  The 
records  have  lost  not  one  iota  of  their  value  for  purposes 
of  religious  instruction  because  they  have  been  found  to 
contain  historical  inaccuracies  and  discrepancies,  or  even 
legendary  elements.  In  the  words  of  Driver:  "Abraham 
is  still  the  hero  of  righteousness  and  faith;  Lot  and 
Laban,  Sarah  and  Rebekah,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  in 
their   characters   and   experiences   are   still    in    different 

^^  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  Ivii,  Iviii. 

"F.  C,  Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testament,  chdi'^.i. 


326  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

ways  types  of  our  own  selves,  and  still  in  one  way  or 
another  exemplify  the  ways  in  which  God  deals  with  the 
individual  soul,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  individual 
soul  ought,  or  ought  not,  to  respond  to  his  leadings." 
Then  he  continues:  "What  if  some  of  these  figures  pass 
before  us  as  on  a  stage,  rather  than  in  real  life?  Do 
they  on  that  account  lose  their  vividness,  their  truth- 
fulness, their  force?  On  the  contrary,  not  only  do  they 
retain  all  these  characteristics  unimpaired,  but,  if  it  be 
true  that  the  figures  in  Genesis,  as  we  have  them,  are 
partly,  or  even  in  some  cases  wholly,  the  creations  of 
popular  imagination,  transfigured  in  the  pure,  'dry'  light 
which  the  inspired  genius  of  prophet  or  priest  has  shed 
around  them,  the  book  of  Genesis  is  really  more  sur- 
prising than  if  it  were  even  throughout  a  literally  true 
record  of  events  actually  occurring.  For  to  create  such 
characters  would  be  more  wonderful  than  to  describe 
them."  ^'^  The  same  conviction  regarding  the  permanent 
religious  value  of  the  patriarchal  stories  finds  expression 
in  the  words  of  J.  E.  McFadyen:  "li  it  should  be  made 
highly  probable  that  the  stories  were  not  strictly  his- 
torical, what  should  we  then  have  to  say?  We  should 
then  have  to  say  that  their  religious  value  was  still 
extremely  high.  The  religious  truth  to  which  they  give 
vivid  and  immortal  expression  would  remain  the  same. 
The  story  of  Abraham  would  still  illustrate  the  trials  and 
the  rewards  of  faith.  The  story  of  Jacob  would  still 
illustrate  the  power  of  sin  to  haunt  and  determine  a  man's 
career,  and  the  power  of  God  to  humble,  discipline,  and 
purify  a  self-confident  nature.  The  story  of  Joseph  would 


"  The  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  Ixviii,  Ixix.  The  succeeding  para- 
graphs give  a  summary  of  the  religious  teaching  of  the  patriarchal 
stories. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  327 

still  illustrate  how  fidelity  amid  temptation,  wrong,  and 
sorrow  is  crowned  at  last  with  glory  and  honor.  The 
spiritual  value  of  these  and  similar  tales  is  not  lost,  even 
when  their  historical  value  is  reduced  to  a  minimum,  for 
the  truths  which  they  illustrate  are  truths  of  universal 
experience."  ^^  Both  historically  and  religiously,  there- 
fore, the  patriarchal  narratives  are  of  the  highest  value. 

3.  From  Egypt  to  the  Jordan,  Exodus  to  Deuteronomy. 
The  closing  chapters  of  Genesis  record  how  the  Hebrew 
nomads,  after  living  in  Canaan  for  some  generations,  were 
driven  by  famine  into  Egypt,  where  the  Pharaoh  settled 
them  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  a  district  in  the  eastern  Nile 
Delta.  There  they  remained  in  practical  seclusion  for 
many  generations,  retaining  to  a  considerable  extent  their 
tribal  customs  and  belie fs.^^  In  the  course  of  time  a  new 
dynasty  arose  in  Egypt;  under  it  began  a  period  of  op- 
pression, from  which  the  Hebrews  were  delivered  under 
the  leadership  of  Moses.  The  book  of  Exodus  relates 
the  closing  events  of  the  stay  in  Egypt,  the  incidents  con- 
nected with  the  Exodus,  and  the  march  of  the  Israelites 
until  they  reached  Mount  Sinai.  The  book  of  Numbers 
continues  the  account  of  the  wanderings,  to  the  settle- 
ment east  of  the  Jordan.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy 
consists  mainly  of  addresses;  the  first  of  these  contains 
a  rehearsal  of  the  history  from  Mount  Horeb  (Mount 
Sinai)  to  the  Jordan.  The  book  closes  with  a  description 
of  the  death  of  Moses. 

As  to  the  substantial  accuracy  of  these  accounts  there 
can  hardly  be  any  doubt.  At  any  rate,  what  we  know  of 
conditions  in  Palestine  and  Egypt  makes  it  quite  easy  to 


'*  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church,  p.  335. 
"  This  period  is  passed  over  very  briefly  in  the  Old  Testament, 
compare  Exod.  i.  7. 


328  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

believe  that  at  least  some  of  the  Hebrew  clans  were 
driven  by  famine  to  the  Nile  Delta,  and  that  a  member 
of  one  of  these  clans  rose  to  prominence  at  the  court  of 
Egypt.  True,  archaeology  has  discovered  no  evidence  of 
Israel  or  of  Joseph  in  Egypt,  no  definite  reference  to  the 
oppression  of  Israel  or  to  the  Exodus;  but  it  has  fur- 
nished numerous  interesting  illustrations  of  statements 
and  allusions  in  the  Genesis  and  Exodus  narratives,  which 
make  it  evident  that  the  principal  events  recorded  are 
quite  within  the  possibilities  of  the  age.^*^  Archaeology 
has  shown,  for  instance,  that  intercourse  between  Pales- 
tine and  Egypt  was  not  unknown  in  the  days  of  Abraham ; 
and  that  on  several  occasions  parties  of  foreigners  re- 
ceived permission  to  settle  in  Egypt,  as  is  told  of  the 
family  of  Jacob.  The  story  of  the  exaltation  of  Joseph 
assumes  a  new  significance  in  the  light  of  archaeology. 
About  B.  C.  1675  there  poured  from  Asia  into  the  Nile 
Delta  a  horde  of  Semites,  which  in  a  short  time  secured 
control  of  Egypt,  and  whose  kings,  known  as  the  Hyksos 
kings,  that  is,  kings  of  the  countries,  continued  supreme 
for  about  a  hundred  years.  If,  now,  the  Exodus  is  dated 
about  B.  C.  1220,  the  most  probable  date  in  the  light  of 
Egyptian  history  and  of  the  Old  Testament  story,  and  the 
biblical  statement  is  accepted  that  the  stay  in  Egypt  lasted 
approximately  four  hundred  years,  the  descent  would 
have  taken  place  during  the  period  of  Hyksos  supremacy 
in  Egypt.  The  Hebrews  belonging  to  the  same  race  as 
the  Hyksos,  is  it  impossible  to  believe  that  a  shrewd  and 
farseeing  Hebrew  should  make  himself  indispensable  to 
the  rulers,  and  should  be  rewarded  with  the  honors  said 
in  Genesis  to  have  been  heaped  upon  Joseph,  or  that  a 
clan  related  to  him  should  be  permitted  to  settle  in  Egypt? 

^D.  G.  Hogarth,  Authority  and  Archceology,  pp.  47ff. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  329 

Famines  of  long  duration,  due  to  the  Nile  failing  to 
overflow,  were  not  unknown  in  Egypt  in  the  days  when 
the  Hebrews  are  said  to  have  been  in  southern  Palestine. 
For  instance,  a  famine  lasting  several  years  is  attested  for 
approximately  the  age  of  Joseph.  An  inscription  in  the 
tomb  of  a  certain  Baba,  at  El-Kab  in  Upper  Egypt, 
represents  the  deceased  as  saying:  "I  collected  corn  as  a 
friend  of  the  harvest  god;  I  was  watchful  at  the  time  of 
sowing;  and  when  a  famine  arose  lasting  many  years,  I 
distributed  corn  to  the  city  each  year."  Of  an  earlier 
official  a  similar  statement  is  made :  "In  my  time  there 
were  no  poor,  and  none  were  hungry  in  my  day.  When 
the  years  of  famine  came,  I  plowed  all  the  fields  in  the 
district;  I  kept  the  inhabitants  alive  and  gave  them  food 
so  that  not  one  was  hungry." 

As  has  been  stated,  there  is  no  reference  in  the  in- 
scriptions to  the  oppression  of  Israel  in  Egypt;  but  again 
archaeology  has  shown  the  possibility,  if  not  the  proba- 
bility, of  such  oppression.  According  to  the  biblical 
account,  the  oppression  was  instigated  by  a  king  who 
"knew  not  Joseph."  Now,  as  has  been  suggested,  the 
king  under  whom  Joseph  rose  to  distinction  may  have 
been  one  of  the  Hyksos  kings.  The  rule  of  the  latter 
came  to  an  end  with  the  seventeenth  dynasty,  which  was 
followed,  about  B.  C.  1575,  by  the  strong  eighteenth 
dynasty.  If  Joseph  rendered  the  efficient  service  to  Egypt 
with  which  he  is  credited  in  Genesis,  it  could  not  be 
overlooked  by  the  new  dynasty  coming  upon  the  throne  so 
soon  after  his  time,  and  the  privileges  accorded  to  his 
countrymen  by  the  earlier  dynasty  might  be  continued. 
When,  however,  about  B.  C.  1350,  the  nineteenth  dynasty 
came  to  the  throne,  enough  time  had  elapsed  to  obscure 
the  remembrance  of  Joseph;  hence  the  new  kings,  afraid 


330  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  the  growing  numbers,  may  well  have  adopted  a  policy 
of  oppression  and  extermination.  The  oppression  is  said 
to  have  assumed  the  form  of  forced  labor,  which  was  a 
familiar  institution  in  ancient  Egypt. 

If  the  aforementioned  events  took  place,  the  fact  of 
an  Exodus  cannot  be  doubted;  and  a  unique  personality 
like  Moses  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  nation's  life  is 
needed  to  explain  the  subsequent  national  and  religious 
development  of  Israel.  And  Moses  loses  none  of  his 
glory  because  he  is  no  longer  considered  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch.  On  the  contrary,  the  vital  significance  of 
Moses  and  his  work  can  be  appreciated  only  in  the  light 
of  modern  critical  study.  In  the  words  of  one  who  is  in 
full  sympathy  with  modern  views  regarding  the  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch:  "Moses  was  the  man  who  under 
divine  direction  'hewed  Israel  from  the  rock.'  Subse- 
quent prophets  and  circumstances  chiseled  the  rough 
bowlder  into  symmeitrical  form,  but  the  glory  of  the 
creative  act  is  rightly  attributed  to  the  first  great  Hebrew 
prophet.  As  a  leader  he  not  only  created  a  nation  but 
guided  them  through  infinite  vicissitudes  to  a  land  where 
they  might  have  a  settled  abode  and  develop  into  a  staple 
power ;  in  so  doing  he  left  upon  his  race  the  imprint  of 
his  own  mighty  personality.  As  a  judge  he  set  in  motion 
forces  which  ultimately  led  to  the  incorporation  of  the 
principles  of  right  in  objective  laws.  As  a  priest  he 
first  gave  definite  form  to  the  w^orship  of  Yahweh,  As 
a  prophet  he  gathered  together  all  that  was  best  in  the 
faith  of  his  age  and  race,  and  fusing  them,  gave  to  his 
people  a  living  religion.  Under  his  enlightened  guidance 
Israel  became  truly  and  forever  the  people  of  Yahweh. 
Through  him  the  Divine  revealed  himself  to  Israel  as 
their  Deliverer,  Leader  and  Counselor — not  afar  off,  but 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  331 

present ;  a  God  powerful  and  willing  to  succor  his  people, 
and,  therefore,  one  to  be  trusted  and  loved  as  well  as 
feared.  As  the  acorn  contains  the  sturdy  oak  in  embryo, 
so  the  revelation  through  Moses  was  the  germ  which 
developed  into  the  message  of  Israel  to  humanity."  ^^ 

From  this  investigation  it  appears  that  all  the  im- 
portant incidents  in  the  early  history  of  Israel  as  recorded 
in  the  Pentateuch  remain  unaffected  by  the  conclusions 
of  modern  criticism  regarding  the  origin  of  this  group  of 
books.  Nor  is  the  religious  value  of  the  narratives 
affected;  they  still  reveal  the  hand  of  God  in  the  events 
culminating  in  the  organization  of  a  Hebrew  national 
life,  and  they  still  furnish  striking  illustrations  of  the 
reality  of  a  Divine  Providence. 

On  turning  from  the  historical  records  to  the  legal 
sections,  a  moment's  thought  will  convince  the  student 
that  the  inherent  value  of  the  laws  embodied  in  the 
narrative  portions  remains  the  same  whether  they  come 
from  Moses,  or  were,  as  modern  scholars  believe,  the 
product  of  the  nation's  experience  from  Moses  to  Ezra. 
The  latter  view  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  Hebrews 
were  the  first  to  learn  and  to  teach  that  the  supreme  goal 
of  life  is  righteousness  and  to  give  expression  to  pure 
and  lofty  ethics  in  objective  law.  The  principles  of 
Hebrew  legislation,  whether  they  were  established  by 
Moses  or  by  some  other  man  or  men  of  God,  remain  to 
this  day  the  bone  and  marrow  of  the  world's  greatest 
legal  systems.  Whenever  the  Decalogue  assumed  literary 
form,  "the  marvelous  perfection  of  this  summary  of 
moral  law,  its  intrinsic  excellency,  the  universal  applica- 
bility of  its  several  precepts,  and  their  abiding  and  un- 
changing nature,  place  these  commandments  in  advance 

^^  C.  F.  Kent,  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  vol.  i,  pp.  44,  45. 


332  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

of  anything  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  annals  of 
human  legislation."  ^^  Thus  it  is  with  the  entire  legal 
system.  Modern  criticism  does  not  tend  to  deny  or  doubt 
that  the  laws  of  Israel  are  permeated  by  a  divine  spirit, 
for  the  important  question  is  not,  when,  where,  and  by 
whom  were  these  laws  written,  but.  Do  the  character 
and  spirit  of  the  laws  bear  witness  to  the  presence  of 
God? 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  may  be  stated  in 
the  words  of  the  Oxford  Hexateuch :  "The  structure  of 
the  Pentateuch  may  be  compared  to  the  fabric  of  a  great 
cathedral  whose  external  history  is  imperfectly  recorded. 
The  origins  of  the  church  w^hich  first  stood  upon  its  site 
may  be  irrevocably  lost,  though  fragments  of  its  stones 
may  still  be  lodged  in  the  foundation  walls.  The  plan 
of  the  building  may  have  been  again  and  again  enlarged ; 
the  transepts  may  now  stand  where  once  the  west  front 
was  erected;  the  nave  may  have  been  converted  from 
Norman  to  Perpendicular,  or  may  be  a  wholly  fresh 
construction.  Under  successive  bishops  portions  may 
have  been  pulled  down  and  rebuilt,  the  style  changed 
with  the  century;  yet  here  a  Norman  arch  remains  con- 
tiguous with  a  piece  of  early  English,  or  the  ancient 
vaulting  has  been  preserved  unharmed.  Chapels  may 
have  been  added,  windows  enlarged,  chantries  inserted, 
and  by  perpetual  small  adaptations  the  new  has  been 
combined  (though  not  always  harmonized)  with  the  old. 
It  may  happen  that  the  cathedral  archives  or  the  chron- 
icles of  the  adjacent  abbey  have  preserved  some  mention 
of  the  completion  of  a  tower,  or  the  dedication  of  an 
altar,  yet  the  real  history  is  inscribed  upon  the  venerable 
walls.    By  the  comparison  of  the  parts  among  themselves, 

"  M.  S.  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  28. 


HISTORICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  VALUE  333 

and  with  other  edifices  of  known  date,  it  becomes  possible 
first  to  relate  them  to  each  other,  and  then  to  establish 
their  probable  order  in  time  within  tolerably  exact  limits. 
The  mind  that  planned  and  the  hands  that  executed  the 
chief  features  of  the  design  may  have  passed  away,  to 
remain  forever  obscure ;  but  we  may  still  know  who  were 
their  contemporaries,  and  under  what  influences  they 
wrought  the  soaring  arch,  or  lifted  pinnacle  and  spire 
toward  heaven.  Not  dissimilar  in  method  is  the  process 
which  seeks  to  trace  in  the  growth  of  the  Pentateuch 
through  succeeding  centuries  the  rise  of  the  sanctuary  of 
Israel's  faith  and  life.  And  just  as  the  devotion  of  many 
generations  remains  unaffected  by  the  discovery  that  the 
history  of  the  church  fabric  may  have  been  misread  in  a 
less  discerning  age,  so  if  the  venerable  work  here  con- 
sidered be  now  seen  to  embrace  the  main  courses  of  the 
development  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  it  still  stands  with 
unimpaired  grandeur  as  the  stately  introduction  to  the 
great  series  of  sacred  writings  which  find  their  climax 
in  the  New  Testament."  ^^ 

'^Vol.  i,  pp.  16,  17. 


INDEX 


INDEX 
I.  Subjects  Discussed 


Altar  Fire,  oracle  of,  265 

Ancient  material,  21,  58,  255/?., 
293-295 

Anthropomorphisms,  153,  216 

Archaeology,  21 ;  and  Genesis, 
324fif. ;  archaeological  refer- 
ences, 176 

Ark,  song  of,  266 

Astruc,  theory  of,  50,  59;  modi- 
fications and  expansions,  51 

Atonement,  day  of,  109 

Balaam,  oracles  of,  260,  261 
"Beyond  Jordan,"  170,  171 
Blasphemy,   115 

Book  of  the  Covenant,  202, 
28iff. ;    contents,    282ff. ;    date, 

202fif.,   284ff. 

Building  material,  108 

Canaan,  curse  of,  256,  257 

Canon,  15,  23;  Jewish  division, 
27 

Centralization,  of  worship,  206, 
207 

Christian  tradition,  85 

Chronicles,  composition  of,  72 

Chronological  order,  of  Penta- 
teuchal    documents,    20ifif. 

Composite  character,  of  Penta- 
teuch, 66,  70,  I24ff. ;  of  ancient 
religious  literature,   71 

Creation,  story  of,  30,  I39flf. 

Criticism,  meaning  of,  64;  prob- 
ability of  conclusions,  65,  66; 
results  of,  317,  318;  c.  and  in- 
spiration, 318,  319 

Critics,  lack  of  unanimity,  63!?.; 
points  of  agreement,  66ff. 


Dan,   172 

Decalogue,  272^.;  contents,  274, 
278,  279;  date,  280,  281 

Deity,  conception  of,    I53ff.,  216 

Desert,  originof  Pentateuch  in, 
I07ff. ;  familiarity  with,  no, 
III 

Deuteronomic  Code,  =  D,  159, 
164,  216;  =  Lawbook  of  Josiah, 
i84ff. ;  extent,  186,  302;  origin, 
300;  date,  i86fif.,  205ff.,  301; 
combination   with   JE,  303-305 

Deuteronomy,  name,  28 ;  con- 
tents, 38,  39,  303;  significance, 
I96ff. 

Development  theory,  54ff. ;  mod- 
ern attacks,  59,  60,  i3ofiF. 

Diatessaron,  72,  73 

Direct  internal  evidence,  9Sfif. 

Discrepancies,    I39ff. 

Divine  names,  I23fif. 

Document  Theory,  54fiF. 

Documents,  in  Pentateuch,  66, 
67;  dates,  56,  57,  68,  69,  70, 
233ff. ;  chronological  order, 
20iff. ;  mutual  relation,  224ff. 

Duplicate  narratives,   142,   143 

Egypt,  influence  of,  iiiflf. 

Elohim,  50,  59,  I24ff. ;  signifi- 
cance of.   127 

Elohistic  Document,  =  E,  69, 
iS3ff.,  163.  233,  298;  date, 
24ifT. ;  home,  240,  241 

Evidence,  favoring  Mosaic 
authorship :  indirect,  63fif. ; 
external,  77flf. ;  direct  internal, 
95ff. ;    indirect    internal,    I07ff. 

Exile,  significance  of,  306,  307 


337 


338 


INDEX 


Exodus,  name  of  book,  28 ;  con- 
tents, 33ff. ;  from  Egypt,  114; 
triumph  song,  174,  258,  259; 
value  of  Ex.  narratives,  Z2-]- 
330 

Ezekiel,  208 

Ezra,  247,  250,  251;  Lawbook  of, 
248,  249 

Feasts,  115,  116,  211 
Flood,  narrative  of,  141,  142 
Folk  stories,  295 
Fragment  Theory,  52 

Gemara,  44,  45 

Genesis,     name,     28;     contents, 

3off. ;  significance  of  narratives 

in  Gen.  i-ii,  319-322 
Geographical  references,  i7oflf. 
Graf-Wellhausen  Theory,  54flf, 

Hebron,  172 

Hexateuch,  name,  29;   contents, 

29 
Hezekiah,  I92flf. 
High  places,  204 
Historical  background,  20iflf. 
Historical  statements,   i73fiF. 
Holiness,  Law  of  — H,  see  Law 

of  Holiness 
Host  of  heaven,  189 

Indirect  evidence,  general,  63ff. ; 
internal,  I07fif. 

Introduction,  scope,  I3ff-;  divi- 
sions, 14,  15;  history,  l6ff. ; 
modern  schools,  20 

Jacob,  blessing  of,. 258 

Jair,   172,   173 

JE,  combination  of,  299,  300 

Jehovah,  see  Yahweh 

Jehovistic  Document,  =  J,  see 
Yahwistic  Document 

Jericho,  curse  of,  266,  267 

Jesus,  testimony  of,  ^^'A. 

Jethro,  175 

Jewish  tradition,  44,  45,  86 

Josiah,  reforms  of,  i8iff.,  185; 
Lawbook  of,  68,  iSifif.;  =  D, 
i84ff. 

Lamech,  song  of,  255,  256 


Law,  deposited  in  sanctuary, 
i87flf. 

Law  of  Holiness,  67,  287fF. ;  con- 
tents, 288;  date,  288ff. ;  origin, 
305,  306 

Law  of  Moses,  Sgfif. 

Legal  Codes,  68,  I43ff.,  isSflf., 
27iff. ;  origin,  271,  272;  con- 
tents, 273;  value  of,  331,  ZZ'2; 
ancient   legal   material,   271  flf. 

Legal  enactments,  I76ff, 

Levites,  108,  109,  145-147,  207- 
210,  225,  226 

Leviticus,  name,  28;  contents, 
35,  36 

Linguistic  characteristics,  116, 
117,  i6oflf. 

Literary  composition,  manner  of, 
7oflf. 

Literary  histories,  22 

Literary  parallels,  2i7ff. 

Literary  peculiarities,  169,  170 

Manna,  in 

Massoretic  Text,  and  Septuagint, 

I35ff. 
Miracles,   155 
Miriam,  song  of,  265 
Moab,  boundary  line,  259 
Modern  knowledge,  15,  16,  23 
Monarchy,  297 
Mosaic    authorship,    18,    43,    49, 

58,     63ff. ;     indirect     evidence, 

63fif. ;     external     evid.,     77fF. ; 

direct     internal     evid.,     95ff. ; 

indirect  internal  evid.,  I07ff. 
Moses,  175;  Law  of,  89ff. ;  song 

of,  262,  263 ;  blessing  of,  263- 

265;  work  of,  296;  significance 

of.  330,  331 
Multiplicity  of  altars,  203 
Mutual  relation  of  Pentateuchal 

documents,  224^.,  227 

New  Testament,  statements, 
77flf.,  84;  purpose,  84,  85 

Nomad  life,   Ii4ff. 

Numbers,  name,  28;  contents, 
36-38 

Og,  176 

Old  Testament,  testimony  of, 
88flf. 


INDEX 


339 


Palestine,  lack  of  knowledge  of, 
113,  114;  conquest  of,  296 

Parallels,  2i7ff. 

Passover,  114,  115 

Patriarchal  Stories,  295,  296: 
historical  value,  322-325;  re- 
ligious value,  325-327 

Patriarchs,  31 ;  oracles  concern- 
ing P.,  257 

Pentateuch,  name,  27 ;  division, 
27,  28 ;  contents,  29ff. ;  analysis, 
59,  68;  unity,  ^z^  74  j  author- 
ship, testimony  regarding, 
95ff. ;  traditional  view,  43,  63ff. ; 
modern  view,  123 ;  composite 
character,  66,  70,  I24ff. ; 
growth,  293ff. ;  permanent 
value,  3i5ff. 

Poetic  material,  255ff. 

Post-Mosaic  material,  i69ff. 

Priesthood,  108,  109,  145-147, 
204-209,  225,  226 

Priestly  benediction,  266 

Priestly  Code,  =  P.  68,  69,  I57ffv 
163 ;  contents,  308 ;  origin,  308- 
312;  date,  247ff. ;  inherent  dan- 
ger, 309;  combination  with 
JED,  311 

Property  laws,  115 

Reflection,  154 

Reformation,    influence    of,    16, 

46,  47 
Renaissance,  influence  of,  16,  46, 

47 
Repetitions,  I39". 

Reuel,  175 

Ritual,  204,  224,  225 

Sacred  sites,  157 
Sacrifice,  place  of,  143,  I44.  226 
Samaritan  Pentateuch.  131 
Septuagint,    i3off.;    and    Masso- 
retic  text,  I35ff- 


Shekel  of  sanctuary,  176 

Sihon,  song  of,  260 

Slaughter  of  animals,  116 

Slavery,  I47ff. 

Solomon,  and  Deuteronomy,  188 

South,  171 

Style,  i6off.,  224 

Sun  and  moon  standing  still,  267 

Supplement  Theory,  52,  53 


Talmud,  44 

Tent,  107,  108 

Text,  Hebrew,  15,  23;  uncer- 
tainties, 59,  60 

Theological  conceptions,  I53ff-. 
2i5ff. 

Torah,  43,  44,  89,  90 

Tradition,  Jewish  and  Christian, 

85ff. 

Traditional  views,  18,  43ff.,  63ff. ; 
defenders  of,  18,  49,  58,  59,  I34, 
315-317  ,  ,      ^ 

Translations,    demands    for,    13, 

14 
Unity,  of  Pentateuch,  73,  74 

Vocabulary,  i62ff.,  223 

Wars,  of  Yahweh,  175 
Well,  song  of,  259,  260 
West,   171 

Worship,  centralization  of,  206, 
207 

Yahweh,  50,  59,  I24ff.,  153; 
significance  of,   127;  wars  of, 

175 
Yahwistic   Document,   =   J,   69, 
I53fif.,  163,  233,  297,  298;  date, 
234fif. ;  home,  239,  240 


II.  Biblical  Passages 

Genesis 

I.  1—2.  4a  125,  127,  139-141,  217 

1.  I— II.  9  29,  30,  3i9flf. 

2.  4 28 

2.  4b-25   126,  127,  139-141,  217 

2.  4b— 3.  24  126 

2.  7,  8,  15,  19,  21,  22 153 


340  INDEX 

Genesis 

3-  8,  22  154 

4 224 

4-  23,  24  255,  293 

5 224 

5.  1 59 

6.  5,  12  127 

6.  5-13 141 

6.   19,  20  142 

6.  22 128 

7.  5 128 

7.  7-24 141.  142 

7.  16 154 

8.  3 142 

8.  6-14 141 

9-  25-27 236,  256,  293 

10.  2-5 257 

[O.  8,  9  220 

[I.  6,  7  154 

[I.  10 31 

[I.  10—50,  26    29-31,  322fif. 

[I.  12-26 31 

tl.  27 31 

[2.  1-3 31,  237,  257 

[2,  6 46,  113,  159.  173,  236 

[2.  8 240 

[2.  9 171 

13.  3 240 

13-  7 ^73,  236 

13-  14-17 257 

13.  18 172,  240 

[4.  2 113 

[4.  7 113 

14-  14 172 

14-  17 "3 

[5.  7 128,  129 

[7.   I 128,  129 

17.  5 31 

[7.  6-8 158 

17.   10 98 

17.   10,  II  308 

17.  16-19 142 

I 240 

1-8 154 

[8.  9-15 142 

18.  21  154 

19  220 

20.  I  171,  240 

20.  1-17 242 

20.  3,  7  156 

21.  14 240 

21.  17  156,  243 

21.  22-32 242 


INDEX  341 


Genesis 

21.  31    142 

21.  33 159,  203 

22.  2 246 

22.   II    156,  243 

22.  14 46 

22.  19 240 

23.  2 113,   172 

23-  19 113 

24.  62 171 

25-12 31 

25-  19 31 

25-  21 237 

25-  23 257 

26.  1-33  242 

26.  4 257 

26.  32,  33  142 

27.  27-29,  39.  40  257 

28.  3,  4  158 

28.  12 156 

28.  13 128,  129,  257 

28.  16-19 203 

28.  18,  19 142 

28.  18-22 159,  225,  240 

30.  14-18 242 

30.  28-43  242 

31.  9-12 242 

31.  13,  45,  49 159,  240 

31-24 156 

31-27 293 

31-  48ff 244 

32.  24-32 154,  220 

32.  28 142 

32,  32 174 

33-  18 113 

33.  18-20 240 

35-  I,  3,  7 240 

35-2-4 156,  240 

35.  8,  19,  20 240 

35-  10 142 

35-  II 128,  129 

35-  IS 142 

35-20 174 

36.  I 31 

36.9 31 

36-31  46,  173,  236 

36.  32 173 

37-2 31,  59 

37-  3ff 241 

37-8 244 

37-14 172,  240 

37.  21,  22 241 

37-26 240 


342  INDEX 

Genesis 

38 240 

40.  15 ^73,  236 

42.37 241 

43.  3,  8-10  240 

44-  14-34 240 

45.5-8 156 

48.  14-20 241 

48.  20 257 

49.  2-27 258,  263,  293 

49.  8-12 236,  240 

49-30 113 

50.20 156 


Exodus 

1.  1-7 28 

1.7 327 

2.  18 142,  175 

3 156 

3.  I 143,  175 

3.  1—6.  I  176 

3.5 98 

3.  13-15  134 

3.  14 244 

4.  18 175 

4.24 154 

6.  2,  3 128,  129,  134 

6.  2—7.  7  176 

6.  4,  6,  7 158 

6.26,27 170 

8.  1-4,  5-7,  20-32 155 

9.  1-12 155 

II. 3 176 

12,  13   114  308 

12.  12,  17,  23  112 

12.  25-27 113 

13.  5-14 113 

14.21 155 

15.  I 265 

15.  1-18 258,  293 

15.13,  17 175 

15.  21 26s 

15.  22fif 1 10 

16 Ill,    143 

17.  14 95,  103 

18. 1 175 

19.  20-25 280 

20.  I-I7 274ff. 

20.  2 Ill 

20.  4 112 

20.  18 202 

20.  21 148 


INDEX  343 

Exodus 

20.  22—23.  33  96'  183,  184,  202,  227.  28lff. 

20.  23 277 

20.  24,  25 143,  145,  159,  203,  226 

21.2-6 147,  148 

21.  4,  7-9 286 

21.  13,  14  203,  285 

21.  20,  21   286 

21,  26,  27  286 

22.  3,  9  28s 

22.  5,  6,  29 202 

22.  16,  17  286 

22.  21 112 

22.  26 220 

22.  28 115 

22.  29,  30 225 

22.  29-31  277 

23.  lofif 202 

23.  12-19 277 

23.  I4fif 115,  226 

23.  15 112 

23.  16 202 

23.  19 176 

23.  20-33  113.  144-  148,  246 

24.4 46,  95.  96 

24.  7 183,  280 

25—31   108,  308 

27.  I  144 

27.  12 1  I 

28 207,  225 

28.  1 146,  160 

29.  1-9  207,  225 

29.  43-46 158 

29.  46 112 

30.  II-16 226 

30.  13,  24 176 

33-  II 156,  241 

34 184,  227,  275ff 

34.  16 248 

34.  22-24 226 

34-  26 227 

34-  27.  28 95,  96,  277 

35—40  308 

38.  I 145 

38.  24-26 170 

Leviticus 

1—7  109,  219 

I.  1—6.  7  308 

1.5 i^ 

1.  7,  8  109 

2.  2,  3  109 


344  INDEX 

Leviticus 

2,  10 109 

4.  12 109 

4.  21 109 

6.  8 — 10.  20  308 

6.  II 109 

7 226 

10.  3 265 

II 287 

II— 16  308 

11.  45   112 

12 no 

14-  34-57 113 

15-  2-33  no 

16 109 

17 — 26  67,  220,  225,  227,  287ff. 

17.  3-5  116 

17-4 290 

18.  3-30 113 

19.  2 68,  287 

19.  18 288 

19-  34 112 

19.  36 112 

20.  7 68 

21.  22 225 

21.  10-15 207,  225 

22.  31-33 287 

23 226 

23.  36 247 

23.  39 211,  217 

23.  40 247 

24.  10-16 115 

25.  I,  2  149 

25-  39-42 149 

26.  3ff 219 

27.  1-33 109,  226,  308. 

Numbers 
2.  1-34 108 

2.  18 171 

3.  5-10 146,  160,  207,  209 

2,.  22, 109,  171 

3-  29,  35,  38 109 

4-5 109 

5 308 

5-2 114 

6 308 

6.  iff 108,  no 

6.  24-26 266 

9.6 ns 

9-  10-14 '. 115 

10.  35-  36  266 

11 143 


INDEX  ■  345 

Numbers 

11.  28 241 

12.3 176 

12.  6-8 156 

13.  18-20 114 

13-  22 172 

15-  2-41  113,  226 

IS-  37-41  287 

IS-  41  112 

16.  ifif 222 

18 308 

18.  1-7 146,  147,  160,  207,  209 

18.  8-32 109,  226 

18.  12-32 247 

18.  20,  24  113 

18.  21-26 211 

19 308 

21.  14,  IS 175,  259,  293 

21.  17,  18  259,  293 

21.  27-30 260,  293 

21.  33 176 

22 — 24  220,  260,  261,  293 

22.  I 170 

22.  5 173 

22.  9,  20 156 

26.  52-56 115 

27.  i-ii  115 

29.  35 226 

30 308 

32.  iff 98 

32.  19 171 

32.  41 172,  236 

33-2 46,  95,  103,  169 

34.  1-12 114 

35 226,  308 

36.  1-9 115 

36.  13 28 


Deuteronomy 

I-  1-5 145 

1.  5 97,  170 

1-7,  19,  44 259 

2.  12 174 

3-  1-3  176 

3.  8 171 

3-  ri 46,  176 

3-  14 172,  174 

3-  20,  25  171 

4.  5 98 

4-8 98,  100 

4-14 98 

4-  41-49 170,  302 


346       -  INDEX 

Deuteronomy 

5.  I  100 

5.  2  182 

5.  6-21  274ff. 

6.  I 148 

6.  4flf 302 

6.  4,  5  159,  216 

T.2, 248 

10.8 174 

10.  12 159 

11.  I,  13,  22 159 

11.  6 222 

n.  30 171 

12.  I 100,  144,  148 

12.  2-7 144,  185,  226 

12.  5,  II,  14,  18,  21,  26 159 

12.  IS 116,  226 

13-3 159 

14.  22-29 211,  226 

14.  23 144,  159 

15.  2 248 

15.  12-17 145 

15.  20 159 

16.  1-8 i8s 

16,  1-17 226 

16.  2,  6,  7  144,  159,  185 

16.  13-15 211,  217,  247 

16.  16 116 

16.  21,  22  159.  185,  190 

17-3 185 

17-  8-13  190 

17.  9 145,  160 

17.  14-20 188 

17.  16,  17  188 

17.  18 28,  145.  160 

18.  I  14s,  160,  207 

18.  6,  7  191,  195 

18.  8,  10,  II 185 

19- 14 ^^7 

19. 17 190 

20 191 

21.  5 145.  160 

22.  8,  10  191 

23.  17,  18  185 

24.  8 98,  207 

25.4 191   ^ 

26.  12-15  211,  226 

26.  17-19 186 

21.    2ff 100 

28 186 

28.68 218 

29.  I  98,  100,  182,  186 

29.  21  183 


INDEX  347 

Deuteronomy 

31-9 46,  95,  97ff-  182 

31.  loff 100 

31.  22 46 

31-  23 241 

31-  24-26 95,  97flf.,  182,  187,  194 

31.26 44 

32 262,  293 

33 263.  293 

33-  7 235.  246 

33-  13-17  244,  246 

34-1  172 

34.  I-I2 46,  170 

34.4 171 

34-  5-12 44 

34.  6 45 

34-  10 156,  176 

Joshua 

1.  I,  2 241 

I.  1-9 99 

I.  7    88.  98 

I.  8   98    ■ 

1.  I3ff  98 

2.  10   171 

4.   12   98 

4.  20-24 203 

S-  2   98 

5-  15 98 

6.  26 245,  266 

7-7 171 

8.  30-35  loi 

9.  ID 171 

9-  23,  27  237 

10.  12,  13  267 

10.  13 175.  293 

12.  10 264 

13-4-6 114 

13-30 173 

14-15 ^72 

15-  1-5  114-  244 

15-13 172 

15-  21-32 114 

21 226 

22.  2ff 98 

24 156,   242 

24.  I,  25,  30,  32,  33 240 

24.  26 159 

Judges 

1. 1 n? 

1. 1-21 240 

1. 16 256 


348  INDEX 

Judges 

I.  21 264 

1.  28,  29    236 

2.  5 203 

3-4 88 

3-  13 ■ 267 

4-  5 257 

5 235 

5-  17 171 

5-20 267 

6.  26,  27 204 

8.  14 296 

10.  3,  4  173,  236 

10.  8 171 

13-  19 204 

18.  29 172 

20.  26 203 

21.  19 203 

1  Samuel 

1-4 203 

7-  9,  17  203,  204 

9-  12 203 

11.  IS 203 

13-9 203 

14-35 203,  204 

18.  17 237 

20.  19 204 

20.  28,  29  203 

25-28 237 

30 261 

2  Samuel 

I-  18 '^75,  293 

4-2,3 237 

5-6fif 236 

5-  10 267 

5-  12 237 

7.  11-16 79 

8.  14 237 

10.  i-s  72 

14-  13 237 

15-7 203 

19-  35 293 

20.24 237 

21-  2,  3,  9 237 

24.  i-io 72 

24.  i8ff 236 

I  Kings 

2.3 88 

3-4 203,  204,  237 

4-  2,  4  209 


INDEX  349 


1  Kings 

4.  7ff 237 

5.  1-5 ^^7 

8.  S3 293 

9.  15,  21   236,  257 

9.  20,  21  174 

10.  iff 237 

10.28 188 

II 237 

11.  1-3  188 

11.  I4ff 244 

12.  28 242 

16.  34 245,  266 

18.  3off 203,  204 

19.  2 242 

2  Kings 

12,  2,  3 204 

14-  3,  4  204 

14.6 88 

15.  3,  4,  34,  35   204 

16.  18 189 

17.  16 189 

17.  28,  29 49 

18.  3-6 187,  194,  206 

18.  6 88 

18.  12 88 

19.  20-37 206 

21.  3,  5  189 

22.  8ff 124,  i8r,   i83ff. 

22.  11-13  191 

23.  iff i83ff.,  208 

23.  2 183 

2Z.  9 191,  195 

23.  12 189 

23.25 88 

23.  32ff 207 

1  Chronicles 

15.15 88 

19.  1-5 72 

21.  1-8 12. 

22.13 88 

2  Chronicles 

8.  13 88 

19.  8-11  190 

25.  4 88 

30.  16 88 

33.8 88 

34,35 181 

34-3 191  ^ 

34-14 43,  88 


350  INDEX 

2  Chronicles 

35.6 88 

35-12 88 

Ezra 

2.  36-40 210 

3-  2   43 

6.  18 88 

7.  1-26 247 

7.6 43 

7-  14 249 

8.  15-20 210 

Nehemiah 

I.  Sff 222 

8 — 10  247 

8.  13 97 

8.  15 247 

8.  18 211,  222,  247,  248 

10.  30,  31 248 

10.  36-40 247 

10.  37-38 211,  223 

13.  I 88 

Psalm 
95 79 

Isaiah 

I.  9 220 

I.  lo-is 205,  218 

5.  12 293 

11.  9 259 

16.  10 293 

19.  19 190,  242 

2,7.  2-38 206 

Jeremiah 

2.8 55 

7.  22,  23  217 

18.  18 55 

26.  18,  19  206 

ZZ-  18,  21    208 

36.  23ff 192 

Ezekiel 

21.  21 43 

28.  16 259 

44.  9-16 208,  209,  222 

Daniel 
9 222 


INDEX  351 


Ho  sea 

8.  13 218 

9.  3 218 

10.  8 206 

12.  2-6 220 

Amos 

2.  8  220 

4-4.5 206 

4.  II 220 

5.  5  ., 240 

5.  21-23  20s,  218 

5.25 217 

6.5 293 

8.  14 240 

Jonah 

1.7 43 

Micah 
I.  5,  6  206 

5.  6 220 

6.  5 220 

6.  6-8 275 

Malachi 

4,  4 88 

Matthew 

8.4 44,  n 

15.4 79 

22.  31 79 

Mark 

7.  10 44,  77,  79 

10.5 ^^ 

12. 26 79 

13.32 80 

Luke 

20.  ^^ 44,  n^  79 

John 

5.  45-47 44,  77 

7.  19 44,  77 

Acts 

3.24 79 

7.  22 113 

2  Corinthians 

3.15 80 

2  Timothy 

3-  IS-17 84 

Hebrews 

4.7 79 


SOUTHERN  REGIONAI  L'BRABY  f-AClUT^ 


AA    000  804  864    7 


liiiliii:! 


